Is this offensive?
- Thread starter loseth
- Start date
Mishihari Lord
First Post
Not offended. I kind of like it because I'm very simulationist. Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, it's difficult to model properly.
Take the easy one, strength. The average man is stronger than the average woman, and the strongest men are stronger than the strongest women. So far so good. But the system doesn't work well around the edges. A -2 STR means that no woman could start with greater than a 16 STR, and there certainly are women that strong.
And while I think I could make a good case for differences in each stat, things get fuzzy because people can't even agree about what the stats mean in the first place.
And then when you factor in the nuisance of people who are offended by the idea that men and women are different, or who are offended for whatever other reason, it's probably not worth the trouble.
Take the easy one, strength. The average man is stronger than the average woman, and the strongest men are stronger than the strongest women. So far so good. But the system doesn't work well around the edges. A -2 STR means that no woman could start with greater than a 16 STR, and there certainly are women that strong.
And while I think I could make a good case for differences in each stat, things get fuzzy because people can't even agree about what the stats mean in the first place.
And then when you factor in the nuisance of people who are offended by the idea that men and women are different, or who are offended for whatever other reason, it's probably not worth the trouble.
Wik
First Post
You know, as someone who has taken his fair share of anthropology (and women's anthropology, at that!), I have to say that the idea of "women are weaker but wiser/more charismatic" is just silly.
This trait is something that is culturally stressed, not truly biological. While most cultures have a bias towards male dominance in some ways, not all cultures assume males will be stronger. In some north african cultures, women are stronger, because they are responsible for grinding millet (which builds upper body strength), while the men are more dextrous from the hunting that they traditionally perform.
Not to mention that, historically, women carried children quite frequently, and probably had more endurance in some ways. And probably still do.
Margaret Mead was surprised to find polynesian cultures in which the men perfumed themselves and wore flowers, worrying about their hair - and this was "manly" behaviour. It's really all cultural.
All of these things that we relate as being "biological" are really responses to cultural stresses. Women are seen as more caring as a result of the cultural responsibility of motherhood - it's not hard-wired into their brains (or, at least, not as much as you'd think).
I'll be dead honest, here. I'm stronger than my girlfriend, but not by much. And I know plenty of women that could kick the crap out of me. A +2 strength modifier is a big deal - and it's far too big a deal to replicate the differences between the genders.
So, yeah, I find the idea of seperate stat modifiers slightly offensive. I think it's going too far for the sake of a game, and if I saw it in the Character Generation section, I'd probably overrule it, or even stop playing.
Now, rules that stress cultural gender roles are AWESOME in my book - by all means, have Viking Shieldmaidens and have a rule that only men can be legionnaires (provided that women have a "girls-only" group that's worth joining, too). That's just great campaign flavour. But a rule that says "Well, women are naturally weaker, and I'm going to enforce that with a huge penalty" is just silly - and it smacks dab of sexism.
Again, it's just My two cents.
This trait is something that is culturally stressed, not truly biological. While most cultures have a bias towards male dominance in some ways, not all cultures assume males will be stronger. In some north african cultures, women are stronger, because they are responsible for grinding millet (which builds upper body strength), while the men are more dextrous from the hunting that they traditionally perform.
Not to mention that, historically, women carried children quite frequently, and probably had more endurance in some ways. And probably still do.
Margaret Mead was surprised to find polynesian cultures in which the men perfumed themselves and wore flowers, worrying about their hair - and this was "manly" behaviour. It's really all cultural.
All of these things that we relate as being "biological" are really responses to cultural stresses. Women are seen as more caring as a result of the cultural responsibility of motherhood - it's not hard-wired into their brains (or, at least, not as much as you'd think).
I'll be dead honest, here. I'm stronger than my girlfriend, but not by much. And I know plenty of women that could kick the crap out of me. A +2 strength modifier is a big deal - and it's far too big a deal to replicate the differences between the genders.
So, yeah, I find the idea of seperate stat modifiers slightly offensive. I think it's going too far for the sake of a game, and if I saw it in the Character Generation section, I'd probably overrule it, or even stop playing.
Now, rules that stress cultural gender roles are AWESOME in my book - by all means, have Viking Shieldmaidens and have a rule that only men can be legionnaires (provided that women have a "girls-only" group that's worth joining, too). That's just great campaign flavour. But a rule that says "Well, women are naturally weaker, and I'm going to enforce that with a huge penalty" is just silly - and it smacks dab of sexism.
Again, it's just My two cents.
Last edited:
The Eternal GM
First Post
I'm not offended, my sorcerers can always do with +1 Cha, and it's not like they use Str for anything.
Doesn't make much sense... But I'll take it.
While I won't get myself killed by discussing the mental side of things, I think we can agree that blokes are stronger than gals are. No point citing the female bodybuilder... Get me the strongest male and female bodybuilders and I bet you the guy is far, far stronger! Saying "that steroid freak women is stronger than a geeky guy!" is no argument at all.
The problem is that there's a perceived need for equality and balance in the game, but the game system isn't realistic. Never has been, never will be. So the debate, argument or whatever becomes null and void.
I dig Pendragon. Pendragon rocks. Ladies are statted entirely differently to men in it. But then again, so are all the other cultures. If you're not English or Irish, you're basically inferior... Heaven help you if you're a Pict who are woefully low on statistic advantages. But that suits the author's intent and (more or less) the fiction. Not realistic really, but it fits.
Doesn't make much sense... But I'll take it.
While I won't get myself killed by discussing the mental side of things, I think we can agree that blokes are stronger than gals are. No point citing the female bodybuilder... Get me the strongest male and female bodybuilders and I bet you the guy is far, far stronger! Saying "that steroid freak women is stronger than a geeky guy!" is no argument at all.
The problem is that there's a perceived need for equality and balance in the game, but the game system isn't realistic. Never has been, never will be. So the debate, argument or whatever becomes null and void.
I dig Pendragon. Pendragon rocks. Ladies are statted entirely differently to men in it. But then again, so are all the other cultures. If you're not English or Irish, you're basically inferior... Heaven help you if you're a Pict who are woefully low on statistic advantages. But that suits the author's intent and (more or less) the fiction. Not realistic really, but it fits.
Trickstergod
First Post
Offended? No. There are definite biological differences between men and women and trying to suggest otherwise is just silly. We're built differently, physically and mentally - though some of those differences are subtler than others.
That said...the idea of stat differences based on sex is silly, too. Or not silly, but obnoxious, at the least. If I'm playing a Sorcerer, I'd rather not be penalized because I want to play a dude. And if I want women to generally be weaker physically? Well, then either A) I'll play one with a 16 or lower Strength, or B) Just stat them accordingly. I don't need statistical modifiers to achieve this goal. Meanwhile, the person who does want to play a beefy, "Strong as any man" sort of woman doesn't get penalized for it.
Players can always stat themselves out more or less as they like, while the DM can always stat their NPCs as they feel they should be. Why should things be any more complicated than that? PC's are more or less the exceptions, anyway.
That said...the idea of stat differences based on sex is silly, too. Or not silly, but obnoxious, at the least. If I'm playing a Sorcerer, I'd rather not be penalized because I want to play a dude. And if I want women to generally be weaker physically? Well, then either A) I'll play one with a 16 or lower Strength, or B) Just stat them accordingly. I don't need statistical modifiers to achieve this goal. Meanwhile, the person who does want to play a beefy, "Strong as any man" sort of woman doesn't get penalized for it.
Players can always stat themselves out more or less as they like, while the DM can always stat their NPCs as they feel they should be. Why should things be any more complicated than that? PC's are more or less the exceptions, anyway.
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
Oryan77 said:
I'm a guy and fully agree. Just look at the Darwin Awards. How many women win them?....and then nobody seems to be offended by male characters taking a penalty to Wis haha
(Note: people win Darwin Awards for stupidity! Nobody wants to win a Darwin Award!)
I agree a Cha penalty is stupid though. I so want to name a few politicians, but had better not.
Last edited:
