Is this offensive?

[buzz]

I voted "Yes," though I am less offended by the concept than I am amazed people even still have to ask these questions.

 

[Andre]

I have nothing to add but to join the chorus.

Offensive? Not really. Dumb game design? Yeah, very.

Agreed. If this rule was in the game, I'd houserule it out.

 

[roguerouge]

I suppose what I'm saying is that, yes, there may be some general differences between men and women (aside from the obvious). But the game stats don't slice the baloney that thin, which is just fine with me.

Oh, but they can, REl, they can. Remember that races get skill bonuses, too.

So, if you opened up the can of worms labeled "Sex-based Ability Score Modifiers," then it's a very short step to skill bonuses and penalties.

So, which sex gets a bonus to bluff for their lying ways?

And the answers to that question are another reason why you want to avoid Sex-based Ability Score Modifiers.... 'cause there's no right answer, but there's plenty of wrong ones....

 

[JDJblatherings]

Why the plus in charisma?

That's where I smell the sexism.

 

[Sparafucile]

I have failed to vote, suggesting that this is a very pointless debate. Why would you ever try to quantify gender in a fantasy game like D&D?

After all, male and female humans play D&D.

So, having races outside of "human" with different modifers serves to add spice to the game, and diversifies what you can do with a character. Hence the justification for the rules for racial modifiers. Unfortuantely, since each of your players are mostly likely already male or female, then there's little added spice, is there?

Only a genderless human being would find "gender stats" anything but a total drag. . . plus the possibility for offense, for all the reasons stated above.

 

[Oryan77]

Why the plus in charisma?

That's where I smell the sexism.

Cause a naked man is a scary looking thing no matter who he is

 

[loseth]

Why the plus in charisma?

You could read the OP...

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I don't find it offensive, but pointless. As Morrus pointed out, PC's are the best of the best. Racial modifiers are largely for flavor and to reflect gross anatomical and cultural differences from human standard. Gender variation within that distribution should be minimal.

And, in any event, why tick off the player? Whereas many feel comfortable playing a different gender, some don't, and penalizing a player for that isn't worth a trivial increase in realism.

This.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Deep appologies if this post itself offends anyone, but this is just something that I've always been really curious about, so I'm going to take the risk and ask...

D&D imagines races having different potentials. Orcs are dumber, but stronger. Dwarves are more socially awkward, but tougher, etc. In the real world, though, the only real differences between races are cosmetic ones, so although I'm personally fine with D&D 'races' (which I consider to be 'species' more than 'races' in the normal English sense of the word) having bonuses & penalties to their abilities, I do understand why the occasional player gets upset about races having different average 'stats.'

However, the case of gender presents exactly the opposite situation. In the real world there are proven differences between the strengths of men and women, and although there is still debate on the matter in the scientific community, it is probable that women are genuinely smarter than men with regard to languages and probably social intelligence in general. But--taking exaclty the opposite stance as it does with races--D&D is fastidious about making sure there are no such differences in the game (although cheesecake is OK). So, I ask, if D&D set men and women up like races, and gave women -2Str/+1Cha/+1Wis (to represent lower physical strength and higher linguistic/social intelligence) or, conversely, gave women no modifiers but men +2Str/-1Cha/-1 Wis, would this personally offend you?

I've actually had two women tell me female characters should have lower Strength. So I told them to give them lower Strength (out of the point buy pool). There's also nothing preventing a female warrior (like Brienne "the Beauty", who isn't, actually)* from having a high Strength. Any game I run will use point buy, so the problem vanishes. It's only a problem if you're using dice rolls.

Female warriors would probably be rare in any campaign I'm running, but that's strictly a versimilitude thing and certainly will not apply to player characters!

Furthermore, odd-numbered stat mods are broken

*A character from A Song of Ice and Fire. Another female warrior,

Spoiler

Arya Stark

is going for the light fighter route and has been described as "horse faced". Warriors tend to make Charisma a dump stat, so no surprises there.

 

[Delta]

I wouldn't be offended. I'm perfectly open to the concept of possibly simulating gender differences in ability score modifiers. (So, for example, I disagree with Morrus' stance on the issue.)

Implementation would have to look like this to me: Dig up actual research on the mean difference between men & women (surely someone can pinpoint research that's been done like that in the real world). Convert that to ability score modifiers. If the difference is less than +/-2 (in 3E), scrap it as negligible.

So I wouldn't want to use the actual OP-proposed numbers for a bunch of reasons. (a) They use odd modifiers. (b) I don't think they accurately simulate real-world mean differences. (c) They add a layer of complexity which may or may not be warranted by real-world differences.