Is this offensive?

[Umbran]

It's not that WotC lacks the imagination, it's that they're aware enough not to touch the gender issue with your 10-foot pole. Else they'd get proverbially lynched.

I have to agree with you there. Gender roles are a touchy subject for many.

You may argue that this only proves that males have an advantage in rowing because of their build, and not because they are inherently stronger; but this clearly illustrates that the differences in the body structure between males and females result in significantly different power outputs in rowing. As rowing uses every single muscle group, does this not suggest that males have an inherent physical advantage when it comes to strength?

Well, no. It suggests that males have an inherent physical advantage when it comes to strength-tasks that call for a higher center of gravity.

Judo (or any other martial art that uses throws heavily) also uses pretty much all the muscles in the body - but there the lower center of gravity becomes an advantage, and will allow a smaller or lower-center of gravity person to more effectively apply their strength.

This is what I meant when I talked about not having an objective measure for stats. We don't have a real-world measure of "overall strength". Your rowing example, for example, does not address that a person who can lift a lot with his arms may not be able to jump very far, and vice versa, even though they are both strength-based. Or even that there's a difference between the strength hused for slow lifting and the strength used for fast punching.

The D&D stat system really isn't built for this level of granularity.

 

[apoptosis]

This is what I meant when I talked about not having an objective measure for stats. We don't have a real-world measure of "overall strength". Your rowing example, for example, does not address that a person who can lift a lot with his arms may not be able to jump very far, and vice versa, even though they are both strength-based. Or even that there's a difference between the strength hused for slow lifting and the strength used for fast punching.

The D&D stat system really isn't built for this level of granularity.

In some cases it might even go so far as to be contradictory. Strength is strongly positively correlated with size, on the other hand size can be a detriment when determining jumping very far.

Of course then the issue becomes (if brought to an extreme..real extreme), if they are so indefinable why have stats or stat modifiers (race etc.) at all?

 

[Umbran]

Of course then the issue becomes (if brought to an extreme..real extreme), if they are so indefinable why have stats or stat modifiers (race etc.) at all?

I didn't say they were undefinable, so much as say we don't have a good definition on hand to use for this purpose.

When someone says, "That person is very strong," we all have an understanding of what that means. We understand that it isn't a terribly precise statement, and that's okay. And in the game, when we say we have a person with a 17 Strength, we know what it means, as it is clearly defined in the rules.

The problem is that mapping the real-world differences in strength between males and females starts getting into a level of detail the game really wasn't designed to handle. The game's definition of stats, and modes of simulation, are not built for it. This doesn't say it cannot be done, but it suggests that there'll be enough additional work to do it right that it isn't worth the effort. This isn't a game about the minutiae of weightlifting, after all.

Note, I'm assuming that you want to simulate those differences with some impressive level of accuracy, that you want to get this "right". If what you really want is to simulate a world in which females are on average 2 points weaker than men, and who gives a hoot what happens in the real world, this discussion is not useful.

 

[apoptosis]

I didn't say they were undefinable, so much as say we don't have a good definition on hand to use for this purpose.

When someone says, "That person is very strong," we all have an understanding of what that means. We understand that it isn't a terribly precise statement, and that's okay. And in the game, when we say we have a person with a 17 Strength, we know what it means, as it is clearly defined in the rules.

The problem is that mapping the real-world differences in strength between males and females starts getting into a level of detail the game really wasn't designed to handle. The game's definition of stats, and modes of simulation, are not built for it. This doesn't say it cannot be done, but it suggests that there'll be enough additional work to do it right that it isn't worth the effort. This isn't a game about the minutiae of weightlifting, after all.

Note, I'm assuming that you want to simulate those differences with some impressive level of accuracy, that you want to get this "right". If what you really want is to simulate a world in which females are on average 2 points weaker than men, and who gives a hoot what happens in the real world, this discussion is not useful.

It really was more of a mix of a rhetorical question and the hope that it might stimulate some interesting discussion.

I totally agree that the game was not made to handle the granularity of such difference. Though an argument could be made that most racial bonuses shouldn't exist either (maybe the halfling bonus) for similar reasons.

Obviously many people like racial differences as that adds to customization while not liking sex differences as that causes issues.

Personally i am enjoying even less granularity in both category or scope (TSOY has Vigor, Reason and Instinct [rated 1-5] and are defined pretty much you want them to be, Sorcerer has will, stamina and lore [rated 1-12ish]). I used to like games with large amounts of granularity of category and scope (20 different stats ranging from 1-100) but they are usually too much work for my old age.

But since D&D does have a certain amount of granularity of scope (1-18) it does make it more likely that there will be small bonuses because the system can afford it.

If D&D had only 1-5 there definitely would be no call for such types of bonuses. But it doesn't and you could make a case that given its range one could probably have a sex-based STR modifier and it would reasonably model the 'real world'

 

[roguerouge]

An edit...a better way to engineer would not be social practices like you listed but instead if males kept choosing females that were bigger and stronger while females choose mates that were smaller and weaker. Over many generations this should probably impact and begin to reverse the present dimorphism. I may have misinterpreted but your example was a little too lamarckian for my tastes.

To be clear, I was referencing an earlier post on this thread by someone else. I'm not an anthropologist.

 

[apoptosis]

To be clear, I was referencing an earlier post on this thread by someone else. I'm not an anthropologist.

You were clear, my reply might not have made that clear though.

You brought up a good idea though on culturally-based engineering. One that i might use in an upcoming campaign.

 

[tzor]

I can't say I would be "offended" but I can say I would be dissapointed. I've gone through the exercise a number of times, and the last one involved massive web searching to get olypic records to justify the numbers. Is there a difference between male and female ... I would say a definite yes. Is it significant enough to show up on the D&D stat radar? The answer according to my web exercises is a resounding NO. Push it high enough and you might justify a 1 point stat difference which was generally frowned upon in 3E because it allowed for min maxing.

 

[Umbran]

But it doesn't and you could make a case that given its range one could probably have a sex-based STR modifier and it would reasonably model the 'real world'

"Can make a case for" and "the implementation is obvious to all reasonable people" are not the same thing

The base need to ask the OP question - "is this offensive?" speaks to that. If the differences between men and women were really clear-cut and obvious in real-life, folks would largely accept the fact and not find much problem with it.

The difference between the gender issue and D&D races has been mentioned before - for D&D races, we start with the statement that the differences are clear cut and obvious in real life. The game gets to stipulate that without argument as part of the race definition. The game does not get to apply that to gender differences so blithely, because the game doesn't get to define it.

And so, we return to the real, base question - how much fun does this add? It'll vary from group to group, of course, but I don't see that you're gaining much gaming goodness out of it - there's already a mechanic for playing characters with different stats (races). You're basically talking about having sub-races. Why bother with the extra layer?

 

[apoptosis]

"Can make a case for" and "the implementation is obvious to all reasonable people" are not the same thing

agreed

The base need to ask the OP question - "is this offensive?" speaks to that. If the differences between men and women were really clear-cut and obvious in real-life, folks would largely accept the fact and not find much problem with it.

This I don't agree with. I might have an odd viewpoint. But I see many things that folks don't largely accept that are pretty obvious and vice versa. Some differences are very real an pretty clear cut regardless of what the populace generally think. Frankly science is full of this sort of data. For some sciences and areas of knowledge I am probably part of the 'populace' and not the enlightened.

The difference between the gender issue and D&D races has been mentioned before - for D&D races, we start with the statement that the differences are clear cut and obvious in real life. The game gets to stipulate that without argument as part of the race definition. The game does not get to apply that to gender differences so blithely, because the game doesn't get to define it.

This is a good point that races are an a priori definition (which we can do since they are not real), though it does lead me more in the direction to just get rid of these modifiers except maybe halflings for STR. You can of course make an argument for any stat modifiers for any race as they are fantasy.

And so, we return to the real, base question - how much fun does this add? It'll vary from group to group, of course, but I don't see that you're gaining much gaming goodness out of it - there's already a mechanic for playing characters with different stats (races). You're basically talking about having sub-races. Why bother with the extra layer?

I don't think you are gaining much.As i mentioned STR is the only stat that you can easily make an argument for and it doesn't gain anyone very much IMHO.

If anything this discussion has led me to think that maybe all racial bonuses are suspect for similar reasons, they add much less than they take away, but this idea is still being thought through for me. There already is a mechanic for variation in stats (character generation and use of level bonuses).

[while the last paragraph could sound like it is one of an argument via analogy i am actually being serious]

 

[Timeboxer]

Yeah, that's awesome.

You'll enjoy this, then.

Men's Testosterone
Transmutation
Level: Clr 1, Drd 1, Pal 1, Sor/Wiz 1, Masculinity 1
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: 1 round/level
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)

The subject becomes stronger. The spell grants a +2 enhancement bonus to Strength, adding the usual benefits to melee attack rolls, melee damage rolls, and other uses of the Strength modifier. The spell also grants a +2 swagger bonus to skill checks when interacting with females.

Material Component: Axe deodorant.