Is this offensive?

[apoptosis]

Furthermore, while there have been real-world studies looking at male-female differences in intelligence (an old friend of my parents is a distinguished scholar in this field), if there is any difference in IQ, it appears to be at most 3-5 IQ points (either way, depending on population group), depending on how the IQ test is weighted, and this is below the granularity of the D&D stat system, ie in D&D terms human sexes are functionally identical in mean INT. Female variation is less though IRL - fewer 3s and 18s.

I thought the variation was such that it is closer to fewer 16's and 17's and fewer 4's and 5's (using D&D terminology). 3's and 18's were pretty much statistically the same. I thought the very highest and very lowest IQ scores were pretty even while only the high and low IQs show significant difference; men having greater percent of individuals in the high and low range.

I definitely could be wrong on this one though as I haven't read that study in a long long time. And the extremes it could just be that the sample size was insufficient to establish statistical significance.

Apoptosis

 

[Rel]

I think a more realistic comparison for men and women in D&D terms would be to make them climb a wall, jump a few hurdles, fight with a three pound training weapon, and haul sandbags. My prediction is that, for a group of physically active participants, men will meaningfully outperform women only in the sandbag event.

My prediction is that the word "meaningful" is the heart of the whole debate.

Height is another factor that hasn't been discussed much in this thread but it's going to make a difference in climbing, jumping and hurdling. Men are, on average, taller than women. Also having long limbs is a trait typically associated with being an advantage in most forms of combat.

I have no reservations in saying that I think that men would, on average, outperform women in such events. But I still don't think that there is much point served in trying to translate that into a game mechanic.

 

[apoptosis]

My prediction is that the word "meaningful" is the heart of the whole debate.

Height is another factor that hasn't been discussed much in this thread but it's going to make a difference in climbing, jumping and hurdling. Men are, on average, taller than women. Also having long limbs is a trait typically associated with being an advantage in most forms of combat.

I have no reservations in saying that I think that men would, on average, outperform women in such events. But I still don't think that there is much point served in trying to translate that into a game mechanic.

Interesting point about limb size and combat advantage. it seems we could make a case for the poor halfling to have negative modifiers to combat, but the poor guy has been abused enough. Why I am beginning to think that racial modifiers should possibly be removed (the result could be though that would start making things seem bland)

 

[DragonLancer]

It doesn't offend me in any way, shape or form, but I don't see the point of applying those stat mods to female characters.

 

[Rel]

Why I am beginning to think that racial modifiers should possibly be removed (the result could be though that would start making things seem bland)

This isn't really relative to the D&D discussion but I had occasion recently to run a one-shot fantasy game using Risus. In Risus your character is defined by cliches (like being a Cowboy means that you're good at things that Cowboys do like ropin', ridin', shootin' and spittin'). I told the players that they should use Race as one of their cliches (unless they were human).

HOWEVER, I also told them that they didn't have to put a lot of points into it. So that, for example, if they chose to be a dwarf then they could elect how tightly they were associated with the dwarf cliche (things like being dour, greedy, good at mining, smithing and seeing in the dark). They might be a dwarf in little more than name. Or they might be the dwarfiest dwarf that ever dwarfed.

I rather liked the notion that the player got to decide whether his racial choice was merely cosmetic or ran deeper than that.

 

[apoptosis]

This isn't really relative to the D&D discussion but I had occasion recently to run a one-shot fantasy game using Risus. In Risus your character is defined by cliches (like being a Cowboy means that you're good at things that Cowboys do like ropin', ridin', shootin' and spittin'). I told the players that they should use Race as one of their cliches (unless they were human).

HOWEVER, I also told them that they didn't have to put a lot of points into it. So that, for example, if they chose to be a dwarf then they could elect how tightly they were associated with the dwarf cliche (things like being dour, greedy, good at mining, smithing and seeing in the dark). They might be a dwarf in little more than name. Or they might be the dwarfiest dwarf that ever dwarfed.

I rather liked the notion that the player got to decide whether his racial choice was merely cosmetic or ran deeper than that.

That is really cool. I have begun to like games where the skill/ability description has a lot of fluidity to it like that.

 

[mmu1]

8% difference could easily be the difference between an average college male athlete and an Olympic male athlete. You really cant use that type of argument. Look at every event where men and women compete in the same event and the records for men are always higher than for women.

Right.

An 8% difference in any kind of high-end competitive athletic event is enormous - not big, literally off the charts - because it's a matter of diminishing returns. It takes a lot more than 8% more strength and endurance to run, swim, row, bike, whatever, 8% faster than someone else who's a competitive athlete. A runner that was 8% faster than his (same gender) competition would be a god.

That's why, if you look at actual competition results, the difference between winners and losers is so much smaller than that. The current 12 fastest men's results for the 100m dash ranged from 9.74 to 9.86 seconds. That's something like a 1.2% difference between 1st and 10th. In the 10,000 meter run, the difference between the fastest guy in the world and the 25th fastest one is 2.1%. In the same event, the difference between the fastest man and fastest woman is 11%... that's a much bigger difference than between a male olympic champion and a competitive male high school runner.

 

[Ulrick]

Grossest. Euphemism. Ever.

But its there in the rules. Seriously.

More offensive than FATAL? (Of course, FATAL was offensive to pretty much anybody with a working brain...)

I haven't read FATAL, so I can't make a judgment call. From what I've heard, it sounds like I don't want to read FATAL either.

 

[DamnedChoir]

It's not offensive to me, personally, but it is just plain wrong.

First of all, to get the offensive bits out of the way you will have to face the fact that gender differences of any numerical sort in an RPG are a big no-no in our society. Maybe we're a bit touchier about it than we should be but you will never be received positively if you do such a thing or even suggest there's a difference aside from cosmetics in gender selection in a character.

Secondly, I find the stats you chose to be...unfitting at best. If I were going to stat Male and Female Humans differently in D&D that's not the way I'd do it.

Firstly, why do females get +1 Wisdom, +1 Charisma? +2 Wisdom seems much more fitting, and +1 Charisma? Charisma is force of personality and personal magnetism, alot of people when joking about stats for female chars mention charisma or high charisma, but the stat is not 'omfg boobies' or even looks, and it's especially not 'women are pretty, therefor they can intimidate and cast Sorceror spells better and make better paladins and diplomats'. Doesn't quite groove.

Your other problem is you're assuming that the Male is the neutral archetype, and Females are deviating from it by giving them gender distinctions in attributes where the males have none. That's just silly if you're a simulationist, it is the opposite. Women are more common, and the female body is the template that the male body devises from.

If you were even going to consider this, you'd need an even distribution between genders, of an even number of points...

Now, I would personally not adopt such a thing into my games, but if I /were/ to do it, it'd look like this:

Female Human
+2 Dex
+2 Con
+2 Wis

Male Human:
+2 Str
+2 Int
+2 Cha

My simulationist reasoning behind this:

Females are more flexible, their bodies are lighter, and they tend to have better co-ordination with their hands. (Most things effected by Dex thus make sense to be a bit better with a female.) Females are more resistant to pain and trauma physical or otherwise despite other factors, and they tend to live longer as well. Females are also generally more socially alert, able to judge character and situations better, and have more practical and inter-personal knowledge.

Males are stronger, they have more muscle mass, about 1/3 more in the upper body but less in the lower and are generally more developed. Males are generally better at math and abstract reasoning, logic and strategy of a wholly mechanical bent. Lastly, Males tend to be more physically intimidating, as well as have a stronger presence and are more able to get their way by pushing with aggressive diplomacy and active means, rather than understanding. Both men and women would often rally behind a strong leader figure who feels like a father.

Only a few of these are biological, more than half are cultural, but D&D is based on the modern western cultural ideal, so there you go.

There are no penalties. Instead, each sex has a higher range in 3 attributes than the other, and can get a 20.

As offensive as those are, they're the least offensive way to do it if you want to do something like that.

 

[danzig138]

It's not offensive, just poorly thought-out modifiers that don't work for D&Ds detail level.

Despite what all of the thin-skinned offended people are saying to you

Nice subtle attack there.

I thought that was how the majority of roleplayers did it back in the day, but it seems like most people actually pick their race based on what will give them better ability score bonuses for their class. :\

Well, we can't all be as good real roleplayers as you. No, wait, real old-schoolers do it like diaglo said - 3d6 in order. You build the character from there. But never mind that different people might play for different reasons and different types of fun.

But the game stats don't slice the baloney that thin, which is just fine with me.

For gender-based modifiers to work, I think the game's ability scores would resemble something like the ones from 2nd Edition where they had the little sub-stats, but with a bunch more.

From what I've heard, it sounds like I don't want to read FATAL either.

Well, it's an. . . interesting read. Be warned that it may damage your anal circumference however.


Is it just me or is this thread chock full of "But in my experience. . . "? Well, in my experience, I've yet to meet a woman who would have a bonus to Wisdom, and the only reason any that I know would have a bonus to Charisma is because of the physical attractiveness component. If someone seriously wanted to implement something like this in D&D, I'd suggest that they ignore the OP's suggestions, and go with the modifiers pawsplay provided.