Inflamatory: Gender and Attribute Points

[Lev]

Warning, do not read if easily offended.
This is a serious discussion.

If anyone has a problem with this thread, report it to a moderator and have it locked, this is meant for serious discussion and is not a place for trolling.

Well, statistic and science has proven:

1) Men have more overall muscle mass than women.
2) Men build muscle faster.
3) Men generate more twitch fibers and have a greater natural potential for doing so.
4) Women generate more type 2 muscle on average, and because they don't develop the twitch fibers they don't rely in type 1 muscle-- this means they focus on refining type 2 muscle denser.

From that, the following assumptions can be made:

A) Women in DnD should have a lower strength score on average, but what does this mean?
B) Women have more overall type 2 muscle (per ratio), this means lactic acid builds up slower in their muscles in general, and lactic acid is the death of one's endurance.

What does that mean mechanically?

You could assume that men have more STR and women have more CON, but how is this best applied?

Can you see flaws in this information? Please discuss.

[Greenish]

The first question to ask from yourself when houseruling:
How would such a rule improve the gaming experience?

[Chrono22]

Because of the way ability points scale, gender differences probably only account for a difference of 1 or 2 points. The statistical variance of one person to another is much greater. That is to say, the difference in strength only bares out occasionally.
Instituting such a rule seems more trouble than it's worth. If your games require such a strict (and inconvenient) adherence to reality, you probably shouldn't be playing D&D.

[Ernir]

I generally handle it the other way around.

In D&D, men and women have the same ability score modifiers.

Therefore, science and statistics (TM) would, in a D&D campaign setting, show that men and women are equally physically capable.

[Kesnit]

Your numbers are based on averages. Just because women (in general) have less muscle than men does not mean any given man is stronger than any given woman. (Ever seen Olympic women's weightlifters? :smallsmile:)

To put it in a D&D-world, if a woman wants to be a warrior-type, it would make sense for her to work on her strength and endurance, meaning she would build up muscle. Maybe not as much as a man who did the exact same workout, but more than a man who sat in a counting house and tallied accounts.

[Dralnu]

Well, sure. If you stat out your (human) commoners, who mostly have 10 STR anyway, you could say that female (human) commoners have -1 STR +1 CON. It really doesn't matter though.

For adventurers? Don't do squat. It's a fantasy game and every adventurer is a phenomenal exemplar of physical and/or mental aptitude. Females shouldn't be any exception.

[Janus]

I've thought of that, too, though I choose to ignore it in games. Why?
It's fantasy.
Not to mention, the PCs tend to be people that are above average as it is.

I choose not to bring male/female muscular differences in my game. If I did, I would definitely discuss it with the players first and come to an agreement for an appropriate trade-off, such as increased endurance, as you suggested.

But really, I don't see any point in doing that in a game where people fight monsters on a daily basis.

EDIT
Wow, lots of posts while I was typing.

[BridgeCity]

Your numbers are based on averages. Just because women (in general) have less muscle than men does not mean any given man is stronger than any given woman. (Ever seen Olympic women's weightlifters? :smallsmile:)

To put it in a D&D-world, if a woman wants to be a warrior-type, it would make sense for her to work on her strength and endurance, meaning she would build up muscle. Maybe not as much as a man who did the exact same workout, but more than a man who sat in a counting house and tallied accounts.

I think that is kind of his point really. A male fighter would have more strength than a female fighter under his statistics, and that is what he is trying to impliment. I'm sure he doesnt care about every person in the world, just the adventurers.

[Chrono22]

Well, sure. If you stat out your (human) commoners, who mostly have 10 STR anyway, you could say that female (human) commoners have -1 STR +1 CON.
Ah, sexism! *points*
You should have said men have +1 Str and -1 Con :smallamused:


I think that is kind of his point really. A male fighter would have more strength than a female fighter under his statistics, and that is what he is trying to impliment. I'm sure he doesnt care about every person in the world, just the adventurers.
Not to nitpick, but a crowd of commoners can surpass the speed of light by grappling eachother, can create a supercollider with a couple of rocks, and can lasso a dragon into submission.
Really, this isn't about making the game realistic. It's about enforcing a stereotype.

[WildPyre]

The scientific findings of modern day earth hold no sway in the fantasy realms of RPGs.

Please think of the catgirls.

[Urpriest]

From a simulationist perspective, here are two questions:

1. Are the bell curves offset dramatically enough to justify a +2 (or even +1) ability mod?

2. Are the differences nearly as pronounced as those between, for example, elves and humans?

[RanWilde]

Warning, do not read if easily offended.
This is a serious discussion:


Well, statistic and science has proven:

1) Men have more overall muscle mass than women.
2) Men build muscle faster.
3) Men generate more twitch fibers and have a greater natural potential for doing so.
4) Women generate more type 2 muscle on average, and because they don't develop the twitch fibers they don't rely in type 1 muscle-- this means they focus on refining type 2 muscle denser.

From that, the following assumptions can be made:

A) Women in DnD should have a lower strength score on average, but what does this mean?
B) Women have more overall type 2 muscle (per ratio), this means lactic acid builds up slower in their muscles in general, and lactic acid is the death of one's endurance.

What does that mean mechanically?

You could assume that men have more STR and women have more CON, but how is this best applied?

Can you see flaws in this information? Please discuss.


Men have +1 STR and -1 CON.
Women have +1 CON and -1 STR.

The difference between the average man and woman in STR and CON is 2. Whereas if we make it that men have +2 STR and -2 CON, and women have the opposite, it becomes far too big of a difference. This would mean that average female dwarves are adding an extra 2 HP every level! That can lead to huge differences!

[Dralnu]

Ah, sexism! *points*
You should have said men have +1 Str and -1 Con :smallamused:

Sexism again!

You really can't win on that one. Even if you mention BOTH sexes, then one would have to be mentioned first, and then you could be called sexist for the ordering too. Lose/Lose situation. :smalltongue:

[RanWilde]

Sexism again!

You really can't win on that one. Even if you mention BOTH sexes, then one would have to be mentioned first, and then you could be called sexist for the ordering too. Lose/Lose situation. :smalltongue:

So flipping true. Most of the time when people claim sexism its because they simply don't agree with the person who is "sexist".

[Zeofar]

Your numbers are based on averages. Just because women (in general) have less muscle than men does not mean any given man is stronger than any given woman. (Ever seen Olympic women's weightlifters? :smallsmile:)

To put it in a D&D-world, if a woman wants to be a warrior-type, it would make sense for her to work on her strength and endurance, meaning she would build up muscle. Maybe not as much as a man who did the exact same workout, but more than a man who sat in a counting house and tallied accounts.

The point would be that the absolute strongest man in the world is, at least by a little, stronger than the absolute strongest woman in the world. And vice versa with relation to constitution.

While I have no problem accepting this as true, it doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be realized in the game. No problem the other way, though.

As an aside, this makes women just a little better at using magic in stressful situations than men.

[Greenish]

This would mean that average female dwarves are adding an extra 2 HP every level! That can lead to huge differences!How would you know that it applies to races other than humans?

[Lev]

Your numbers are based on averages. Just because women (in general) have less muscle than men does not mean any given man is stronger than any given woman. (Ever seen Olympic women's weightlifters? :smallsmile:)

To put it in a D&D-world, if a woman wants to be a warrior-type, it would make sense for her to work on her strength and endurance, meaning she would build up muscle. Maybe not as much as a man who did the exact same workout, but more than a man who sat in a counting house and tallied accounts.
Right, but averages is what powers racial modifiers.
I'm simply inferring that Gender is just another form of a racial modifier, except it's a sub-sub-race.
As a half-elf could be Main= Human (or Elf), Sub = Elf (Or Human), Blood Line Giant
You could say: Main = Human, Sub = Human, Blood Line = XX or XY

[RanWilde]

How would you know that it applies to races other than humans?

He never said that it only applied to Humans. :smallbiggrin:

[Spiryt]

Men have +1 STR and -1 CON.
Women have +1 CON and -1 STR.

The difference between the average man and woman in STR and CON is 2. Whereas if we make it that men have +2 STR and -2 CON, and women have the opposite, it becomes far too big of a difference. This would mean that average female dwarves are adding an extra 2 HP every level! That can lead to huge differences!

Except that it doesn't have much that sense, or at least would be very complicated, as again, men have significantly greater results at endurance sports as well, are generally more alcohol, poison etc. resistant...

In short, accurate representation of such things is, like as always say, too damn complicated for Abstract thing like D&D. Not worth it.

[Chrono22]

So flipping true. Most of the time when people claim sexism its because they simply don't agree with the person who is "sexist".
I think we can all agree that I'm the sexist person here.:smallredface:

Most of the time when people claim sexism its because they simply don't agree with the person who is "sexist".
Most of the people that make up statistics are wrong.:smallwink:

[RanWilde]

Except that it doesn't have much that sense, or at least would be very complicated, as again, men have significantly greater results at endurance sports as well, are generally more alcohol, poison etc. resistant...

In short, accurate representation of such things is, like as always say, too damn complicated for Abstract thing like D&D. Not worth it.

Hey, I was just giving an example of how you could translate it into DnD. And the men that do have significantly greater results are outliers. You don't think that every man can run a race like Prefontaine, do you? :smallsmile:

@Chrono: I don't think you are sexist. I didn't make up a statistic, I based it off of what I have seen in my own life. I didn't throw out numbers.

[Zeofar]

Except that it doesn't have much that sense, or at least would be very complicated, as again, men have significantly greater results at endurance sports as well, are generally more alcohol, poison etc. resistant...


That has, on the whole, less to do with natural proficiencies and more to do with sex roles.

[Greenish]

He never said that it only applied to Humans. :smallbiggrin:We don't have statistics or science to prove that, say, female dwarves are weaker than male ones.

[Lev]

He never said that it only applied to Humans. :smallbiggrin:
I would say it might not apply to dwarves, though maybe to wild dwarves in the case of beard armor. Might work differently depending on the race, drow for instance might have higher STR in the women ;]


The point would be that the absolute strongest man in the world is, at least by a little, stronger by the absolute strongest women in the world. And vice versa with relation to constitution.

While I have no problem accepting this as true, it doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be realized in the game. No problem the other way, though.

As an aside, this makes women just a little better at using magic in stressful situations.
That's interesting actually, you could look at the current world record holders for different spots and see that there's a gap in there.

[Chrono22]

Meh. If enforcing gender roles is your schtick, I'm not going to bother trying to convince you to do otherwise. But don't be surprised when the half-orc barbarian-playing player is upset when you tell her she'll have to be worse at combat because she has boobies.

[RanWilde]

I would say it might not apply to dwarves, though maybe to wild dwarves in the case of beard armor. Might work differently depending on the race, drow for instance might have higher STR in the women ;]

True, we don't have anything to go by except for our own species. I cannot think of a single primate species in which the STR and CON is reversed, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. Especially since DnD is a magical world only limited by imagination.

I don't think I would play with the rules I came up with... they seem arbitrary and limiting.

[Lev]

Meh. If enforcing gender roles is your schtick, I'm not going to bother trying to convince you to do otherwise. But don't be surprised when the half-orc barbarian-playing player is upset when you tell her she'll have to be worse at combat because she has boobies.

May not apply to half orcs, I'd wager that a half orc female might have enough testosterone for it to not make a difference, hell she could even be hermaphroditic.



True, we don't have anything to go by except for our own species. I cannot think of a single primate species in which the STR and CON is reversed, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. Especially since DnD is a magical world only limited by imagination.
Well, I can agree but perhaps not in the same human race, you could say a maori woman compared to a japanese male and make that comparison, but again that would be subrace and you'd be comparing a subrace with a -1 str score to a subrace with a +1 and I wouldn't necessarily apply the gender difference in strength to maori.

[Chrono22]

I can't really tell which would make the female player more annoyed.

[Lev]

I can't really tell which would make the female player more annoyed.
Guess your female players must never play gnolls.

[Urpriest]

May not apply to half orcs, I'd wager that a half orc female might have enough testosterone for it to not make a difference, hell she could even be hermaphroditic.



Well, I can agree but perhaps not in the same human race, you could say a maori woman compared to a japanese male and make that comparison, but again that would be subrace and you'd be comparing a subrace with a -1 str score to a subrace with a +1 and I wouldn't necessarily apply the gender difference in strength to maori.

Unlikely. Orcs, IIRC, have particularly rigid gender roles, and it would seem odd for a species with less sexual dimorphism to develop such things.

[Chrono22]

No, but one is playing a lizardfolk.

[Zeofar]

That's interesting actually, you could look at the current world record holders for different spots and see that there's a gap in there.

I don't know what you mean by this; I was essentially agreeing with your first post. I've already been aware of the thing about strength, but assuming that the information in your first post is true, it makes some sense that the converse would be true as well. If it isn't realized, then, as I said earlier, it probably has more to do with proclivity than proficiency. The same thing would apply in an Amazonian society where women did most physical-intensive tasks; though they the women are, on average, stronger than the men, it does not mean that male ability is lesser but simply is not practiced. Though, this doesn't account for the not wholly unprobable possibility that some segment of men, which may be far larger in such a society, are genetically disinclined towards physical activity due to whatever genetic mutation or evolution or devolution.

[BridgeCity]

. . . I wouldn't necessarily apply the gender difference in strength to maori.

Just curious, are you from New Zealand?

[Spiryt]

That has, on the whole, less to do with natural proficiencies and more to do with sex roles.

Eh, no.

That has all to do with natural things, like metabolic rates, testosterone production, fat, muscle, tissue ratios, and so on.

No one really really looks weird at women who run or whatever, and there's real hope of any lady beating 14 minutes in 5000 metres run in near future, while guy who can't do it shouldn't even think about top level really...

[Lev]

I don't know what you mean by this; I was essentially agreeing with your first post. I've already been aware of the thing about strength, but assuming that the information in your first post is true, it makes some sense that the converse would be true as well. If it isn't realized, then, as I said earlier, it probably has more to do with proclivity than proficiency. The same thing would apply in an Amazonian society where women did most physical-intensive tasks; though they the women are, on average, stronger than the men, it does not mean that male ability is lesser but simply is not practiced. Though, this doesn't account for the not wholly unprobable possibility that some segment of men, which may be far larger in such a society, are genetically disinclined towards physical activity due to whatever genetic mutation or evolution or devolution.
We have currently a feminist society, and we have very very clean and clearcut arenas and testing grounds for all genders to be able to compete, we make sure that they did not use any chemical enhancers to gain that ground and we make sure no one is cheating, even so we have very clear results, and you can definitely tell by body build if that person is a man or a woman on sight.

From an engineers perspective, you'd be looking at 2 different machines, and as much as the computer inside is the same in every respect, and it's using the same basic parts, it's still got a different build style.

[Fhaolan]

The difficulty with this is that without actual statistics of exactly *how* much difference there is between males and females, it's all down to opinion. And opinion without facts is difficult to justify. I could say men need +1 to Str to fit RL. However, someone else could just as easily say +10 to Str, and have as much real data to back that up as I do.

In addition your statement 'men are on average stronger than women' only takes into account the average. If you have actual statistics for RL men vs women strength, you will probably find that the bell curve assumed by D&D does not accurately model the distribution, and as such any attempt to simply add a +1 to one sex or the other on an attribute will not achieve the desired end. You'll need to modify the curve itself.

Once you start down this path, you'll need to evaluate the other attributes as well to maintain consistancy. Many people have tried to model IQ = Int, but most of them discover all the issues with IQ measurement in RL and realize that this is a fools errand. I dare you to find a statistical basis for measuring Charisma or Wisdom in RL. :smallsmile:

[Chrono22]

So, the difference amounts to 1 minute in professional competition... but most run between 12 and 15. The difference seems pretty minute to me.
The training of an individual, and the gender roles enforced by society seem to have a much stronger influence.

Edit: I find the claim that we live in a feminist society laughable. Even here, in the US, only a small fraction of those that hold office are female. Women make up like 60% of the US population.
Really guys, claims like "most claims of sexism are wrong!" or "we live in a feminist society" have no place in this thread. Just don't even bring it up, it never helps.

[BridgeCity]

. . . I dare you to find a statistical basis for measuring Charisma or Wisdom in RL. :smallsmile:

Male charisma could be measured in . . . inches?

[Arbane]

Eh, no.

That has all to do with natural things, like metabolic rates, testosterone production, fat, muscle, tissue ratios, and so on.


We're talking about a world with flying fire-breathing dragons, Half-Kitchen-Sink templates, and spellcasters, where a well-trained person can take an AXE TO THE FACE with no lasting ill effects.

I think your 'realism' isn't welcome or needed here.

If you REALLY need an excuse for a big strong warrior-woman, just say she's half-half-half-half-half-giant (which has no rule effects whatsoever) and call it a day.

[Zeofar]

Eh, no.

That has all to do with natural things, like metabolic rates, testosterone production, fat, muscle, tissue ratios, and so on.

No one really really looks weird at women who run or whatever, and there's real hope of any lady beating 14 minutes in 5000 metres run in near future, while guy who can't do it shouldn't even think about top level really...

Eh, true enough. Perhaps I had, foolishly, been easily misled by the first post which didn't consider all of the variables. Regardless, assuming that the basis of the first post is true and all other things equal, the concept is sound in theory. All in all, I'm not terribly inclined to believe that women may have more CON than men, but I am willing to accept it as true if necessary for whatever reason, and really I just believe that sex differences exist and there is no terrible crime in recognizing them.

[Marnath]

To put it in a D&D-world, if a woman wants to be a warrior-type, it would make sense for her to work on her strength and endurance, meaning she would build up muscle. Maybe not as much as a man who did the exact same workout, but more than a man who sat in a counting house and tallied accounts.

Actually, it would be more likely that she'd focus on being quick and using hit and run tactics than to bulk up, because it would be less likely for her to match the really top end brusiers in physical strength than it would for her to be faster and more dextrous(heavily muscled people generally aren't as quick as normal sized people.) An example would be Kahlan from the Sword of Truth series. She's just as deadly as Richard, but through speed rather than brute strength. Well, and the "become my slave, no saving throw" thing, but thats beside the point.


I would say it might not apply to dwarves, though maybe to wild dwarves in the case of beard armor. Might work differently depending on the race, drow for instance might have higher STR in the women ;]


Drow women probably are stronger, maybe tougher too. They're described as usually being bigger than the males.

[Lev]

The difficulty with this is that without actual statistics of exactly *how* much difference there is between males and females, it's all down to opinion. And opinion without facts is difficult to justify. I could say men need +1 to Str to fit RL. However, someone else could just as easily say +10 to Str, and have as much real data to back that up as I do.

In addition you're statement 'men are on average stronger than women' only takes into account the average. If you have actual statistics for RL men vs women strength, you will probably find that the bell curve assumed by D&D does not accurately model the distribution, and as such any attempt to simply add a +1 to one sex or the other on an attribute will not achieve the desired end. You'll need to modify the curve itself.

Once you start down this path, you'll need to evaluate the other attributes as well to maintain consistancy. Many people have tried to model IQ = Int, but most of them discover all the issues with IQ measurement in RL and realize that this is a fools errand. I dare you to find a statistical basis for measuring Charisma or Wisdom in RL. :smallsmile:
Well we are talking average ignoring the aspects of culture and lifestyle, it's neutral set and observed training. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to look down somewhere between 17-19 and see you have gotten huge pipes of muscles around your arms overnight when you're a guy. Guys get free arms, minimal work involved.


In humans, secondary sex characteristics include:

* Male
o Growth of body hair, including underarm, abdominal, chest, and pubic hair. Loss of scalp hair androgenic alopecia can also occur
o Greater mass of thigh muscles in front of the femur, rather than behind it as is typical in mature females
o Growth of facial hair
o Enlargement of larynx [Adam's apple] and deepening of voice[3]
o Increased stature; adult males are taller than adult females, on average
o Heavier skull and bone structure
o Increased muscle mass and strength
o Broadening of shoulders and chest; shoulders wider than hips[4]
o Increased secretions of oil and sweat glands, often causing acne and body odor [3]
o Coarsening or rigidity of skin texture, due to less subcutaneous fat
o Higher waist to hip ratio than prepubescent or adult females or prepubescent males, on average

* Female
o Enlargement of breasts and erection of nipples.[4]
o Growth of body hair, most prominently underarm and pubic hair
o Greater development of thigh muscles behind the femur, rather than in front of it
o Widening of hips[5]; lower waist to hip ratio than adult males, on average
o Increased secretions of oil and sweat glands, often causing acne and body odor [3]
o Upper arms approximately 2 cm longer, on average, for a given height[6]
o Changed distribution in weight and fat; more subcutaneous fat and fat deposits mainly around the buttocks, thighs and hips

[Spiryt]

So, the difference amounts to 1 minute in professional competition... but most run between 12 and 15. The difference seems pretty minute to me.
The training of an individual, and the gender roles enforced by society seem to have a much stronger influence.

Dozens of things have influence, and don't change the fact that with similar level of training, steroids, science, talent, woman will achieve way worse results.

Then we can go with it to less abstract circumstances than running around the stadium, and try to think about effects....

But what for?

In D&D you can have 50 pound halfling, and give him 16 strength, just like to 270 pound human. They can then go into the unarmed fight, and halfling can quite reasonably win, even though really, no amount of martial prowess would stop big man from mauling a child sized fellow.

That's the simplest example on how D&D doesn't have really the level of details to bother with such things.... Especially that it doesn't want to have it - it's not the desired ''feel'' of the game.

[Marnath]

Halfling musculature must be a lot more advanced than ours.

[FoE]

Problem: D&D has multiple player races. While you can say that human women on the whole tend to be physically weaker than human men, you cannot say the same of elves, half-orcs, dragonborn or dwarves.

Also, as someone pointed out, adventurers are the "best of the best" and go beyond the norm.

[Zeofar]

We have currently a feminist society, and we have very very clean and clearcut arenas and testing grounds for all genders to be able to compete, we make sure that they did not use any chemical enhancers to gain that ground and we make sure no one is cheating, even so we have very clear results, and you can definitely tell by body build if that person is a man or a woman on sight.

From an engineers perspective, you'd be looking at 2 different machines, and as much as the computer inside is the same in every respect, and it's using the same basic parts, it's still got a different build style.

I don't know what feminist society or arenas you are referring to, and I really don't understand what your point is.

[Chrono22]

Ok, but just what does this realism add to play, aside from making female players feel alienated and allowing you to interfere with their character concept?
And how are you handling the innumerable other absurdities of the game, such as, why a half dragon suddenly grows wings when he casts righteous might on himself.
Or how about when you're drowning a person that's bleeding to death, he stabilizes and regains consciousness when he gets a lung full of water?

That you're zeroing in on sexual dimorphism specifically, really has nothing to do with enforcing realism.

[kyoryu]

The first question to ask from yourself when houseruling:
How would such a rule improve the gaming experience?

Done in one.

[Lev]

In D&D you can have 50 pound halfling, and give him 16 strength, just like to 270 pound human. They can then go into the unarmed fight, and halfling can quite reasonably win, even though really, no amount of martial prowess would stop big man from mauling a child sized fellow.

That's the simplest example on how D&D doesn't have really the level of details to bother with such things.... Especially that it doesn't want to have it - it's not the desired ''feel'' of the game.
I'd disagree about the martial prowess, but evenly trained I'd agree if it were a human that small-- but it's a different race so you may as well compare a wolf to a lion.


Ok, but just what does this realism add to play, aside from making female players feel alienated and allowing you to interfere with their character concept?
And how are you handling the innumerable other absurdities of the game, such as, why a half dragon suddenly grows wings when he casts righteous might on himself.
Or how about when you're drowning a person that's bleeding to death, he stabilizes and regains consciousness when he gets a lung full of water?

That you're zeroing in on sexual dimorphism specifically, really has nothing to do with enforcing realism.
Just facebookedchatted a girl in the campaign I'm running.

Responses:
-hmm mabye
-could make sense
-a lot of sense

Not quite sure how you deal with your girls, but the people I hang around would probably get more insulted if I implied they might have a problem with talking and dealing with this ideas, like they were some type of overfeminist preacher.

[Spiryt]

Halfling musculature must be a lot more advanced than ours.

Define "advanced" - we could assume that halfings could have chimpanzee/big ape like muscles - that are able to generate ridiculous amount of power compared to those of even most athletic, dynamic human.

Then however, realistically, they would have to suffer from decreased dexterity and constitution - can't have muscles that do everything well.


And nowhere does D&D deal with such ideas. :smallcool:

[Zeofar]

Ok, but just what does this realism add to play, aside from making female players feel alienated and allowing you to interfere with their character concept?


How does it alienate women? I can't really tell anymore, but as far as I reckon, he is arguing for women getting a different bonus as well.


Dozens of things have influence, and don't change the fact that with similar level of training, steroids, science, talent, woman will achieve way worse results.




The training of an individual, and the gender roles enforced by society seem to have a much stronger influence.

These two combined is about the long and short of it.

[Marnath]

Define "advanced" - we could assume that halfings could have chimpanzee/big ape like muscles - that are able to generate ridiculous amount of power compared to those of even most athletic, dynamic human.

Then however, realistically, they would have to suffer from decreased dexterity and constitution - can't have muscles that do everything well.


You could easily have muscles much tougher than a humans and still stop short of chimpanzees. And halflings are quicker because they have much less mass to move around.

[Spiryt]

Ok, but just what does this realism add to play, aside from making female players feel alienated and allowing you to interfere with their character concept?


With such "ideas" one would have to come up with some "boni" for females.... And here things get even more complicated.... Strengthened by the fact that flamewars may be easily risen because of this topic.

There are too many differences between male and female humans, that are impossible to deal with using 3.5, or pretty much any system...

If I necessarily had to follow OP idea, and install some "dimorphism" - I would probably gave female bonus to Wisdom....

But seeing that Druids and Clerics are the best melee as well, that would overpower them solidly. :smalltongue: :smallwink:

[Chrono22]

Not quite sure how you deal with your girls, but the people I hang around would probably get more insulted if I implied they might have a problem with talking and dealing with this ideas, like they were some type of overfeminist preacher.
With the girls I play with, these ideas are never even an issue. If they want to play an 18 str half orc barbarian, I don't retroactively lower their scores to match my interpretation of how being female is supposed to work. If my players want to play halfling barbarians, or multiclass elf bard/barbarians, it also doesn't phase me.
I'm a "hands off" type DM. Unless the players specifically ask for input on their characters, I let them take full creative ownership. Anything else is unnecessary interference.

[Ozymandias]

I think Arcanum did +1 Str for males and +1 Con for females. Since Con was basically useless in Arcanum and Str was useful for everyone, this really wasn't a good thing.

I think this is something where the individual differences are significant enough that it makes demographic differences unimportant. The thing about races is that they are meant to feel mechanically different from other races; that's part of the reason they exist. With genders, however, especially in humans, players typically don't want to be rewarded or penalized, because it's seen as more of a fluff thing, generally.

It's also possible that D&D humans have a subtly different physiology than in our world; I mean, if the rules say they are equal, then you should infer that they are equal, not that the rules are wrong, right?

[Godskook]

I would personally not model the female advantage with a +con bonus. I've see too many Domestic Violence Awareness videos to believe that a woman can survive taking hits better than a man can(i.e., hit points).

I would suggest +dex. It fits their archetypal fighting styles much better(fast, light weapons, speed>power), and fits with my personal experience IRL that women tend to be better at(and prefer) TWF than THF.

[Spiryt]

And halflings are quicker because they have much less mass to move around.

That's pretty much going back to the start...

They are much less massive, so they are quicker, more agile, they can turn, accelerate, stop and blah blah quicker and "better", but they are less massive so they have no hope of influencing the matter physically as well. Push less, pull less, bounce away from doors instead forcing them open, and so on.

[Zorzark]

As a woman, my response to this would be along the lines of...

I am going to play a female human combatant with whatever stat array I want and don't try and tell me I can't by screwing with the stats. :smallannoyed:

[Illuminate_Void]

I don't know...seems like Pathfinder got it right. +2 to any one ability score of your choosing. +1 skill point or hit point per level on your favored class. Huh...funny how this issue seems to have already been solved.

[Person_Man]

The best thing about D&D is that it offers a huge array of options - I can simulate pretty much any ability anyone can conceive of. The worst thing about D&D is that 90% of those options are +X or -X to some statistic. I'm willing to sort through the latter to enjoy the former. But to the extant that it's possible, we should all collectively try to limit the pointless bookkeeping and fiddly modifiers.

And nutrition and quality of medical care are the largest determinant of height and life expectancy, not gender. Although men in north Europe (Sweden, Finland, Denmark, etc) are a few inches taller (and presumably, 1-10% stronger) on average compared to the women in north Europe, the women of north Europe are on average a foot taller (and presumably, 10-20% stronger) then men in your choice of a 3rd world country. Similarly, while the women of north Europe might have a life expectancy that's 5 years longer then the men of north Europe, the men of north Europe live 20+ years longer then the women of your choice of a 3rd world country.

Also, catgirls.

[Marnath]

That's pretty much going back to the start...

They are much less massive, so they are quicker, more agile, they can turn, accelerate, stop and blah blah quicker and "better", but they are less massive so they have no hope of influencing the matter physically as well. Push less, pull less, bounce away from doors instead forcing them open, and so on.

Less massive, but with lean muscles that happen to be more powerful than in humans.
My father grew up on a farm, and he carried 60 pound feed bags all day sometimes, when he was only about 30 pounds himself. The limits for physical performance are higher than most people realize, you just have to push yourself beyond what is sensible to get there.

[hiryuu]

We could turn this around.

Men are, according to Zucker, Eckel, and Grossman, more prone to risky behavior, so I think that men should realistically have a penalty to Wisdom, and are more aggressive, so they should have a penalty to Charisma but a small bonus to Intimidate.

...or we could look at some more recent studies who've been studying spreads in Oceania some areas of Africa who've noted no major anatomical differences but note that cultures there don't pride physical strength in men, but who have noticed that while men still average near the top of the spread, the differences in strength aren't nearly as noticeable as they are in Western countries where men are pushed into physical labor or activities at a younger age, lending some credence to the idea that "men strong, woman weak" may actually also be a cultural construct.

That's not the point I'm trying to make, though. The point is that it's a sticky issue because you can prove anything you want about gender issues by looking around for the right study or series of studies, like the most recent one that indicates higher levels of testosterone make you a better team player and less prone to violent behavior, and that pretty much everything we know about gender psychology (men are smarter, women are less aggressive/show their aggression in other ways, men marry older, women are more emotional, etc.), is not only wrong, but an entirely cultural artifact based on passive indoctrination (actually, this built on research from as early as 1935, look up the Chambri people, for example, where men are seen as artistic, weak, and emotional, and that's what shows up in their culture: weak, artistic, emotional men, but those men are considered good at politics, and the culture has no gender submission concept).

[Spiryt]

My father grew up on a farm, and he carried 60 pound feed bags all day sometimes, when he was only about 30 pounds himself. The limits for physical performance are higher than most people realize, you just have to push yourself beyond what is sensible to get there.

And we go again, if human had push them, he would be ever more powerful and strong, since he has 200 pounds of lean and powerful muscles, not 40.... :smallconfused:

And if halfling would have inherently more powerful body, it would have to come at the expense of other motoric functions, it's pretty obvious, and what I'm trying to say.

[Marnath]

like the most recent one that indicates higher levels of testosterone make you a better team player and less prone to violent behavior,

I'm gonna stop you right there until I can stop laughing long enough to breathe. Seriously? Have they ever been to a ballgame?

[Coidzor]

May not apply to half orcs, I'd wager that a half orc female might have enough testosterone for it to not make a difference, hell she could even be hermaphroditic.

*facepalm* So now half-orcs are sterile because they're intersexed or they're infringing on gnoll's hyena territory. That is not a road I would ever want to go down, so your strength of stomach is commendable at least.


The first question to ask from yourself when houseruling:
How would such a rule improve the gaming experience?

This. I see no benefit that would justify the time that it would take to apply such a house rule to the entire game and have it be balanced.

[mucat]

Not to nitpick, but a crowd of commoners can surpass the speed of light by grappling eachother, can create a supercollider with a couple of rocks, and can lasso a dragon into submission.
No, they can't. I mean, sure, in a let's-play-logic-games-with-RAW theoretical exercise, they can, but what DM would allow that in an actual campaign (unless it was an intentionally silly one)?

Whereas the rues that Spiryt was proposing were presumably meant to be used in actual play.

I don't think rules for gender differences in Str or Con would add anything to the game, when enforced on PCs. Many players prefer to play their own gender -- especially in tabletop, rather than PbP, games -- so such a rule would make one player less able to effectively play a warrior-type role than another. I can't see how that adds to the fun.

Among NPCs, you don't need rules for stat modifiers, since their stats are usually assigned rather than rolled or point-bought. If the world is one in which women are physically smaller and lighter than men, then it's easy enough to just make most of the muscle-bound bruiser NPCs male, and have female NPCs gravitate more toward cerebral or skill-based roles. But let the players play whatever archetype they want.

[Zeful]

May not apply to half orcs, I'd wager that a half orc female might have enough testosterone for it to not make a difference, hell she could even be hermaphroditic.

Doubtful, Orcs can breed freely with humans and provide fertile offspring, they have to be close enough genetically that any change in gender differences in humans would apply to them. The same would apply to Elves for that matter.

[Lev]

As a woman, my response to this would be along the lines of...

I am going to play a female human combatant with whatever stat array I want and don't try and tell me I can't by screwing with the stats. :smallannoyed:
This is a good point, though calling your gender into the equation is kind of silly as it targets both men and woman in the modifier, and there's a 100% chance that you are male, female or both.



*facepalm* So now half-orcs are sterile because they're intersexed or they're infringing on gnoll's hyena territory. That is not a road I would ever want to go down, so your strength of stomach is commendable at least.
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/gnoll_med.jpg

I'm 100% comfortable with gnoll females being hermaphroditic.
Though I'm also comfortable with my players taking sex in RP way too far as long as they don't drag me into it.

[Zeta Kai]

While the OP makes a reasonable & valid point, gender politics are such a hot-button issue that it would be impractical to implement a rule wherein different sexes receive different bonuses.

I'd say that ,if you absolutely must make a houserule on this:

Don't phrase it with penalties, phrase it in terms of bonuses. If your statting out a male, grant a +1 bonus to STR, but don't bestow a -1 penalty to CON. And do the same for the females, but reverse the stats. Penalties carry a negative connotation that would bother many players.
If this houserule is used, make sure that HP are not affected by CON. It would be seen as unfair if the females got a 50% chance of having an extra hit point. It's not a large bonus, but it would likely be a sore issue.
Don't touch mental scores, ever. While it can reasonably be argued that the average male human has a significantly greater amount of strength than the average female human, extending this argument to mental attributes is foolish & unsupported by verifiable evidence.
Only apply such a houserule to NPCs (IE, leave the PCs' scores alone). Player characters are explicitly special individuals within the context of the game world. They have elite arrays, can't be affected by diplomacy, & most importantly, they are run by people with feelings & opinions in the real world that may not match your own. Leave the stat tweaking to the NPCs, who won't care if you're possibly sexist.
Apply this schism to humans, but perhaps apply variant gender differences in other races. Maybe elven males are more intelligent, while elven females are more wise? Are dwarven males are tougher, but the females are more dextrous? Maybe human norms are reversed for lizardfolk? The possibilities are intriguing, & they suggest subtle differences in the inter-gender relationships of other peoples.
Lastly, if this houserule doesn't enhance the play experience of the game, consider putting your creative energies elsewhere. While there is something to be said for accuracy & verisimilitude, there may be better & less controversial ways to achieve this.

[Zorzark]

Touche. Allow me to edit then. Ahem:

As a person, my response to this would be along the lines of...
I am going to play a human combatant with whatever stat array I want and don't try and tell me I can't by screwing with the stats.:smallannoyed:

There we go.

Also, I don't think hyenas are actually hermaphrodites. They're different, yeah, but saying they're all hermaphrodites goes a bit far. Lack of sexual dimorphism does not equal hermaphrodite.

Edit: Also, it carries a lot of unfortunate implications from that you seem to be heading down a path of "lack of sexual dimorphism = everyone is intersexed or hermaphroditic." Do I really need to explain why?

[Coidzor]

The more dangerous one is the ease by which someone could interpret it as a statement that women can't be strong unless they're actually men or might as well be.

edit: edit-ninja'd!

Re: hyenas themselves, though, it's that the dominant female, in nature, will have its hormonal levels altered by attaining the position of matriarch such that it will begin to appear to be a hermaphrodite. The funny thing is this impacts their fertility due to the shape of their birth canal being altered, IIRC.

[Marnath]

Also, I don't think hyenas are actually hermaphrodites. They're different, yeah, but saying they're all hermaphrodites goes a bit far. Lack of sexual dimorphism does not equal hermaphrodite.

Races of the wild, I think, has a lineup with gnolls of both genders. They're identical, but apparently of distinct gender.

[Aotrs Commander]

Also, I don't think hyenas are actually hermaphrodites. They're different, yeah, but saying they're all hermaphrodites goes a bit far. Lack of sexual dimorphism does not equal hermaphrodite.

Edit: Also, it carries a lot of unfortunate implications from that you seem to be heading down a path of "lack of sexual dimorphism = everyone is intersexed or hermaphroditic." Do I really need to explain why?

Actually, hyens are emphatically not hemophrodites. Spotted Hyenas - ONLY - are female domiant, though, and they have and enlarged [piece of female genitalia the filter won't allow me to specify] that superficially looks a bit like [the male genitalia]. The female hyeneas apparatus stretches to accomodate the male's, but is in a position such the female hyena has complete control of which males can mate with her.

So, it is entirely plausible that for anthropamprhic hyenas (which may or may not be gnolls):

a) The female would be larger

b) Given spotted hyena's sexual dimorphism is actually a notable point, their females should be as if not more obviously different than in humans (following the same logic for sexual dimorphism for them as in primates, e.g. polygamous species tend to have higher and larger tned to have higher).

c) And on a social level, on top of the high aggression and female dominance, they'd probably be very picky about their mates.

...

...

You know, it just occured to me that Drow society is probably not a million miles away from what anthropamorph hyeana society would look like... Yikes.

[Valameer]

D&D is so abstract, I don't think this kind of thing fits too well, although I've thought about it.

It would make an interesting campaign world maybe - men would gravitate towards melee combattants because of their strength, and women would fill in the lower HD roles such as wizard, sorcerer and cleric due to those classes not really requiring strength, but getting a nice boost from con.

In such a world, I would argue that women would tend to be the leaders, given the disparity between warrior-types and caster-types. :smallamused:

Though you might try it, as an experiment, on NPCs, I don't think these bonuses and penalties should ever apply to the PCs. It would just turn gender into something else to optimize. Wizards don't need strength but con is always great so a woman would clearly be a better choice for that class.

OTOH I did give human females a free +1 to HT, human males a free +1 to ST when we played GURPS. That game tends to be a lot more simulationist, though, so YMMV.

I guess in more 'realistic' games you could consider it, but I'd forget about picky details like this when playing D&D. You don't keep track of your wound locations, which way you swing your sword, or your character's diet, right? :smallsmile:

[mucat]

You don't keep track of your wound locations, which way you swing your sword, or your character's diet, right? :smallsmile:

Actually, yes to all three...but purely in an RP sense; none of those things have any mechanical effect on the game.

[Valameer]

Actually, yes to all three...but purely in an RP sense; none of those things have any mechanical effect on the game.

Excellent! So, same with gender, then. Right? :smallsmile:

[Zeful]

Excellent! So, same with gender, then. Right? :smallsmile:

Obviously, so we got start working on rules for location damage, combat styles, and dietary requirements.

[Lev]

0While the OP makes a reasonable & valid point, gender politics are such a hot-button issue that it would be impractical to implement a rule wherein different sexes receive different bonuses.

I'd say that ,if you absolutely must make a houserule on this:

1Don't phrase it with penalties, phrase it in terms of bonuses. If your statting out a male, grant a +1 bonus to STR, but don't bestow a -1 penalty to CON. And do the same for the females, but reverse the stats. Penalties carry a negative connotation that would bother many players.
2If this houserule is used, make sure that HP are not affected by CON. It would be seen as unfair if the females got a 50% chance of having an extra hit point. It's not a large bonus, but it would likely be a sore issue.
3Don't touch mental scores, ever. While it can reasonably be argued that the average male human has a significantly greater amount of strength than the average female human, extending this argument to mental attributes is foolish & unsupported by verifiable evidence.
4Only apply such a houserule to NPCs (IE, leave the PCs' scores alone). Player characters are explicitly special individuals within the context of the game world. They have elite arrays, can't be affected by diplomacy, & most importantly, they are run by people with feelings & opinions in the real world that may not match your own. Leave the stat tweaking to the NPCs, who won't care if you're possibly sexist.
5Apply this schism to humans, but perhaps apply variant gender differences in other races. Maybe elven males are more intelligent, while elven females are more wise? Are dwarven males are tougher, but the females are more dextrous? Maybe human norms are reversed for lizardfolk? The possibilities are intriguing, & they suggest subtle differences in the inter-gender relationships of other peoples.
6Lastly, if this houserule doesn't enhance the play experience of the game, consider putting your creative energies elsewhere. While there is something to be said for accuracy & verisimilitude, there may be better & less controversial ways to achieve this.

Well thought out argument and nicely crafted points, I'll respond individually:

0) Agreed in that the application of this rule is unwieldy and must be approached though at least a minimal amount of tact and respect with your friends. If your friends don't love you, I don't suggest implementing this rule.

1) I was thinking about that and completely agree, something along the lines of [+1str m//+1con f] would be about the jist as long as it doesn't raise their stats above the previous limit, in essence it would be a free pointbuy stat.

2) I would have to agree, as science has implied that females have a higher pain threshold, there is a level of mental constitution which goes along with HP, and the link towards mental/physical toughness and plot armor should probably be left alone in terms of gender, but that being said a race with +2 con has an extra hit point-- so why shouldn't a gender? At the end of the day aren't races just genetics or are they magical in nature?
Also the application of concentration may not make the Con addition viable, and without a +1 to each gender I don't think I'd ever approve the houserule.

3) No mental scores should be altered because of gender in humans, and only after INTENSE diversity of race should they be changed in any way, such as with the Xeph who are just eurogenetic humans.

4) I think it's better applied to NPC's, but I disagree that there isn't evidence to support these claims, at least there is enough evidence to back up a houserule if a Cha-heavy DM wanted to implement it.

5) Agreed, there's a lot of things that can be done with it, adds interesting flavor to genders rather than androgyny mechanics.

6) I may implement this house rule only as an additional bonus with my homebrew realism difficulty system, for instance for green and blue (RAW and mixed realism) characters this wouldn't come into play, but red (maxed realism) characters may gain a +1 to a stat dependings on their race/gender.


It would make an interesting campaign world maybe - men would gravitate towards melee combattants because of their strength, and women would fill in the lower HD roles such as wizard, sorcerer and cleric due to those classes not really requiring strength, but getting a nice boost from con.
A world where men like to fight, hit things, and wrestle because of their strength created by gender-driven hormones? That's be a sight to see ;P

[ThunderCat]

We have currently a feminist society,Hold it right there.


Men still occupy the highest positions in said 'feminist' society, a myriad of studies show that all things being equal (e.g. identical stories with male or female protagonists), women are judged more negatively than men in several ways, and transsexuals often find that they get treated with greater respect with male bodies than with female (look up Ben Barres for an example).

As for myself, I've been sexually harassed in my own gaming group, been physically assaulted by a guy due to sexism (long story), experienced having exactly as many right answers on my math tests as the class' resident math 'genius' and yet never receive the same praise and recognition from the teacher as him, have students in my class refuse help from me only to accept it readily when a guy told them the exact same thing, and have it made clear to me on several occasions that if I should ever act in a way which is complete accepted in men (e.g. be promiscuous, not remove hair from my legs or armpits), I'd be considered filthy, cheap, and even unwelcome in certain companies. And I consider myself lucky.

Your claim that we live in a feminist society indicates that any field dominated by one sex is only the result of inborn differences, and perhaps you really believe that, and believe that the field of psychology is completely biased and prone to inventing fictional results of tests, and that none of the people who report any differently have any credibility, but that doesn't make it the truth. In fact, given that many people who hold decidedly feminist views avoid identifying as feminist, or at least try not to be public about it, because portrayals of straw feminsts (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/STRAWFEMINIST) as objects of scorn have made feminism into a dirty word (people trying to label others as feminist in an attempt to discredit them is fairly common), proclaiming society itself to be feminist is absurd.


In short, I'm not trying to be political, or refute your point about the physical differences, but please refrain from making loaded (and controversial) claims like that. It's even more needless than sex-based ability scores.

[Skorj]

Sorry, I skipped a bunch of posts: have we invented FATAL yet? :smalleek: Just need to add racist human modifiers and stat out sexual organs, and we'll be there, I think.

It's true that there are significant physical differences in ability for the RL human sexes. I can't see what trying to model that would add to the fun of playing a game as abstract and far from reality as D&D. OTOH, adding new playable races with strong sexual dimorphism (and alien cultural gender roles) can add fun to the game without pushing people's buttons.

(Also, arguing about whether we live in a RL feminist culture is a bit silly, when the forums cross so many cultures. Different people live in different ways.)

[Gametime]

Considering that D&D throws any conception of "species" out the window with the incredible various in interspecies breeding, I think it's safe to say that Dungeons & Dragons humans are not real-world humans.

I would also like to voice my displeasure at the implication that women from "strong" races must be hermaphroditic. It's offensive on multiple levels and poor science besides.

[Worira]

This is a bad idea, for the same reasons it was a bad idea the other hundred times it was brought up.

[Cerlis]

Ah, sexism! *points*
You should have said men have +1 Str and -1 Con :smallamused:


Not to nitpick, but a crowd of commoners can surpass the speed of light by grappling eachother, can create a supercollider with a couple of rocks, and can lasso a dragon into submission.
Really, this isn't about making the game realistic. It's about enforcing a stereotype.

No commoners can do no such thing, because any DM would say "Well the creators didnt think players would nitpick these rules and find out they can theoretically do something...stupid". There arent any rules for sleeping either but everyone does it, cus it is sense. There is a difference between a lack of rules and a lack of realism.

This isnt about Stereotypes. Biologically men and women ARE different and that does result in a difference that makes men and women different. From the Original Post it would seem he doesnt want to impose gender differences with any vigor, and might not even care. Majority of the posters here arent even addressing the issue, they are just saying "You are sexist" and in regard to the actual subject matter "why does it matter"
It doesnt, i'm sure he knows it doesnt. Thats not the point.

How is this any different than me looking at that one book with all the alternate rules and choosing to give my character 1 more hp per HD and 5 less speed because he's chubby? Or one less on Cha based skills because he's ugly? The difference is people are paranoid about sexism.

Furthermore when people try to say that Women are stronger then men they usually (and i'm exaggerating a bit) do something like compare a female body builder to a whimpy boy. You have to compare like to like. A male bodybuilder who worked out the same much as the female -would- probably have more muscle mass, and likely be stronger. and a whimpy boy would likely be stronger than his whimpy twin sister (unless of course her hormones where comparable to his growing up. So probably less of a difference if they are very simular)
---------------------
To actually answer the question, i do believe that assessment makes sense. If you where to nitpick then the higher con of women would apply to some things that arent affected by their muscles (like resistance to poison) but there are other more broken rules (such as older people getting better hearing as their body degrades).
However the +2 stat differences with races is because their bodies are VERY different. So i think +1 to their respective stat would be the most i'd apply.

I like the idea of that one book with the Body Traits in that strong people instead of getting +str get + 2 to strength checks and skill checks. Which i think makes sense, since lifting or strength based skills take advantage of the bodies entire muscle frame, so something like Male general stronger upper body strength has more room to work with, while if you narrow it down to Arm vs Arm (Such as an attack roll) i dont think the difference between the genders would be noticable. I dont know how you'd apply the Female bonus to skill checks and stuff, since + con would apply to skills saves and checks based on stuff that is not muscle based (Example, They'd get a bonus to Concentration, which probably has nothing to little to do with muscles)

[Lev]

Hold it right there.


Men still occupy the highest positions in said 'feminist' society, a myriad of studies show that all things being equal (e.g. identical stories with male or female protagonists), women are judged more negatively than men in several ways, and transsexuals often find that they get treated with greater respect with male bodies than with female (look up Ben Barres for an example).

As for myself, I've been sexually harassed in my own gaming group, been physically assaulted by a guy due to sexism (long story), experienced having exactly as many right answers on my math tests as the class' resident math 'genius' and yet never receive the same praise and recognition from the teacher as him, have students in my class refuse help from me only to accept it readily when a guy told them the exact same thing, and have it made clear to me on several occasions that if I should ever act in a way which is complete accepted in men (e.g. be promiscuous, not remove hair from my legs or armpits), I'd be considered filthy, cheap, and even unwelcome in certain companies. And I consider myself lucky.

Your claim that we live in a feminist society indicates that any field dominated by one sex is only the result of inborn differences, and perhaps you really believe that, and believe that the field of psychology is completely biased and prone to inventing fictional results of tests, and that none of the people who report any differently have any credibility, but that doesn't make it the truth. In fact, given that many people who hold decidedly feminist views avoid identifying as feminist, or at least try not to be public about it, because portrayals of straw feminsts (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/STRAWFEMINIST) as objects of scorn have made feminism into a dirty word (people trying to label others as feminist in an attempt to discredit them is fairly common), proclaiming society itself to be feminist is absurd.


In short, I'm not trying to be political, or refute your point about the physical differences, but please refrain from making loaded (and controversial) claims like that. It's even more needless than sex-based ability scores.

My apologies, I didn't mean that society is an integrated and enlightened feminist society, I meant that on average a person is educated about sexism and feminism, not to say it doesn't still effect business politics or that some people still have problems which change their views.

[Thajocoth]

This is incorrect. While it's true that men who are active enough have more upper body strength on average, women who are active enough tend to have more lower body strength. It really balances out.

If you wanted to be real nitpickey about it, you could add two feats "Active Male: Prerq 15 Con - +1 str" and "Active Female: Prerq 15 Con - +1 dex".

I wouldn't change the base numbers because a man and a woman who sit around in a tower reading books all day are going to be evenly matched... And really, there are many other factors that have a much bigger impact on these traits than gender that aren't included in calculating these stats... Like height. When you make a game system too complex, people will stop wanting to play it.

[ThunderCat]

How is this any different than me looking at that one book with all the alternate rules and choosing to give my character 1 more hp per HD and 5 less speed because he's chubby? Or one less on Cha based skills because he's ugly? The difference is people are paranoid about sexism.The difference is you made the choice. I prefer to make my female characters spellcasters and/or focus on dexterity, and social and mental skills. But that's something completely different from giving people bonuses based on sex. If someone wants to make a character that's ugly but extremely charming despite of it, or chubby but surprisingly fast, and you're considering disallowing it, I'd expect some of the same answers. You're just paranoid over people pointing out sexism.


Furthermore when people try to say that Women are stronger then men they usuallydon't. They usually don't suggest that in the first place. The most people have said is that the differences are not as clear as some people make them. That's it.

[ThunderCat]

My apologies, I didn't mean that society is an integrated and enlightened feminist society, I meant that on average a person is educated about sexism and feminism, not to say it doesn't still effect business politics or that some people still have problems which change their views.Fair enough :smallsmile: I just saw a program where a bunch of men complained about being oppressed and feminism having gone to far, because men no longer outnumbered women two-to-one in the parliament (now it's more like three-to-two), and it's becoming something of a pet peeve of mine.

[Gametime]

How is this any different than me looking at that one book with all the alternate rules and choosing to give my character 1 more hp per HD and 5 less speed because he's chubby? Or one less on Cha based skills because he's ugly? The difference is people are paranoid about sexism.



Actually, the difference is that a heavy build is the direct cause of being tougher and slower, or what have you. Gender is relevant to physical qualities only insofar as gender results in different builds. It's one thing to say "My character has powerful muscles, so he's strong" and another to say "My character is a man, so he has powerful muscles, so he's strong."

[Callista]

Bad idea to make genders different--people will be choosing gender based on their ideal builds, and since gender has so many different societal and interpersonal implications, that affects role-play quite a lot. Now, D&D settings--most of them--do include quite a high degree of gender equality, so that this effect is less extreme than in the real world; but it's bad to limit your players like that.

If you wanted gender differences, they'd have to be much smaller. For example, women get +1 to all Constitution-based checks made to run for long distances; men are considered to have 2 STR more than they do for the purpose of lifting and carrying capacity. These aren't enough to force players to choose one gender or another for fear of damaging their build; nor enough to create an unbalanced situation by giving people the ability to get their stats higher at lower levels than they should.

[ffone]

What does that mean mechanically?

You could assume that men have more STR and women have more CON, but how is this best applied?

Can you see flaws in this information? Please discuss.
[/SPOILER]


Gender differences are easy to incorporate with no changes to the rules at all:

The distribution of each human ability score is 3d6. Perhaps more than half of the 11-18 Str people are male and more than half the 3-10 people are female. Reverse with Con if you like. The end.

As long as the minimums and maximums are the same for both genders (which may or may not be true, and the Olympics may suggest otherwise, but who cares) this allows you to adjust the verisimilitude and 'demographics' of the game world as you desire....with zero effect on how the PCs have to do their stats.

If you do rolled PC stats and would like a statistical justification for 4d6b1 and it not differing by gender: perhaps the probability of someone becoming an adventurer, conditional on their ability scores, are such that the distribution of male and female adventurers are both the same (and better than the general populations). For example, females are less likely to become Paladins, Fighters, Barbarians, etc., but among those that do, their distribution of Str is the same as males's.

[Murdim]

How is this any different than me looking at that one book with all the alternate rules and choosing to give my character 1 more hp per HD and 5 less speed because he's chubby? Or one less on Cha based skills because he's ugly? The difference is people are paranoid about sexism.
:smallsigh:

That, or, you know, there's also the fact that even with those optional rules, you can still play an overweight character just for the fluff of it, without actually taking the corresponding trait. The DM won't force you to either take the speed penalty and a HP bonus or remove the pudginess from your character's description. With gender-based mechanics ? Not so much. If your DM decides to use it as a houserule, you will take the modifiers associated with your sex whether you want it or not, and it will limit your character options.

There's many traits to choose from, and it is very likely that at least one of those traits will fit your character's fluff as well as their build. Sex-based modifiers don't give you a choice ; your character is one or the other. If they're not the "right" one, tough luck. Unless your players want to play intersexed characters... oh wait, they can't do that anymore, since the gender binary is now actively enforced in the gameplay.


Anyway, Strength-based female characters are already rare in most campaigns. Do we really need a mechanic to enforce this ? :smallannoyed:

[Lev]

This is incorrect. While it's true that men who are active enough have more upper body strength on average, women who are active enough tend to have more lower body strength. It really balances out.

If you wanted to be real nitpickey about it, you could add two feats "Active Male: Prerq 15 Con - +1 str" and "Active Female: Prerq 15 Con - +1 dex".

I wouldn't change the base numbers because a man and a woman who sit around in a tower reading books all day are going to be evenly matched... And really, there are many other factors that have a much bigger impact on these traits than gender that aren't included in calculating these stats... Like height. When you make a game system too complex, people will stop wanting to play it.
I like your avatar, doublestaffing lizardfolk? Most of our doublestaffers in our community are gone right now, unfortunate.

Men have more muscle mass on average, regardless of bodytype, women have more muscles in the backs of their legs and men have more muscle on the front of their legs (I know I do).

Body types:



Meso

http://www.fitsite.be/Afbeeldingen/mesomorph.jpg

Ecto

http://www.fitsite.be/Afbeeldingen/ectomorph.jpg

Endo

http://www.fitsite.be/Afbeeldingen/endomorph.jpg
(Bad picture, this is actually just fat =S)



Fair enough I just saw a program where a bunch of men complained about being oppressed and feminism having gone to far, because men no longer outnumbered women two-to-one in the parliament (now it's more like three-to-two), and it's becoming something of a pet peeve of mine.
Unfortunate! I have the opinion that for every pet peev of mine I leave remaining there will be a time it will cause me misfortune!


How is this any different than me looking at that one book with all the alternate rules and choosing to give my character 1 more hp per HD and 5 less speed because he's chubby? Or one less on Cha based skills because he's ugly? The difference is people are paranoid about sexism.
It pretty much fits it in with UA rules, cross between a UA rule and a racial modifier.

Yes people are paranoid about sexism, not even counting the people filtered out by the disclaimer at the front we for sure have people commenting who have had both traumas and prejudices because of it. Both sides of the coin are understandable-- perhaps a father figure who despised woman and having the child torn apart by that as he saw his dad beat the tar out of his mom, then transferring that trauma to a girlfriend later in life, where as the girlfriend absorbs the transferred sexist trauma and develops a sensitivity to the prospect of sexism.

It's unfortunate, but the reason it's not in the book is that people are sensitive-- and people are sexist. Neither are good things, but we have to consider both and be responsible about handling it en masse-- this houserule concept was just a shot at getting something accomplished around gender as if it were GENETIC differences, the same as a dwarf is different than a human, and it seems to have mixed results but I'm happy with:

Houserule:
For A More Realistic Setting
PB 79
Add 2 Free Points to 1 Specified Stat
Make specified stat appropriate to race/gender mix.

[DragonOfUndeath]

how about this:
Flaw: Female's Strength deficit
Prereq: Female
-1 STR
the feat gained from taking this flaw must be used to buy Female's Constitution bonus

Feat: Female's Constitution bonus
Prereq: Female, Flaw Female's Strength deficit, only available at Level1
+1 CON

Flaw: Male's Constitution deficit
Prereq: Male
-1 CON
the feat gained from taking this flaw must be used to buy Male's Strength bonus

Feat: Male's Strength bonus
Prereq: Male, Male's Constitution deficit, only available at Level1
+1 STR

there. you can take the gender modifications if you want at level1 or not. if you think it is sexist then don't take the flaw/feat or ban it from your games (if DM).

[Spiryt]

This is incorrect. While it's true that men who are active enough have more upper body strength on average, women who are active enough tend to have more lower body strength. It really balances out.

If you wanted to be real nitpickey about it, you could add two feats "Active Male: Prerq 15 Con - +1 str" and "Active Female: Prerq 15 Con - +1 dex".

I wouldn't change the base numbers because a man and a woman who sit around in a tower reading books all day are going to be evenly matched... And really, there are many other factors that have a much bigger impact on these traits than gender that aren't included in calculating these stats... Like height. When you make a game system too complex, people will stop wanting to play it.

Uh, what is incorrect? Are you serious?

Men who are active enough, will have stronger upper and lower body on average. Simple as that. Women have their lower body strong compared to upper, yes, but not compared to guys. If what you was saying was true, girls would have better results in squats, for example, which is plain nonsense. :smallconfused:

If you have man and woman who "sit around in tower reading books" in vast majority of cases man will be much stronger creature, to stick to only this difference. That's the way in which humans are.


The only thing I agree on, like I said many times, is that there's no real point in implementing it in D&D, which is not really system for it. Perhaps no system really need it that much, unless someone wants real trV00 simulation. :smallwink:

[Tengu_temp]

My reaction to this thread. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbZx6SEViEM)

[Lev]

how about this:
Flaw: Female's Strength deficit
Prereq: Female
-1 STR

Feat: Female's Constitution bonus
Prereq: Female, Flaw Female's Strength deficit, only available at Level1
+1 CON

Flaw: Male's Constitution deficit
Prereq: Male
-1 CON

Feat: Male's Strength bonus
Prereq: Male, Male's Constitution deficit, only available at Level1
+1 STR

there. you can take the gender modifications if you want at level1 or not. if you think it is sexist then don't take the flaw/feat or ban it from your games (if DM).
I think we're done here, requesting lock.

[Spiryt]

My reaction to this thread. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbZx6SEViEM)

http://i852.photobucket.com/albums/ab81/intothenight86/gifs/2z7rlfk.gif

BTW, there were gender stats thread every month? Haven't noticed.

[Cerlis]

Actually, the difference is that a heavy build is the direct cause of being tougher and slower, or what have you. Gender is relevant to physical qualities only insofar as gender results in different builds. It's one thing to say "My character has powerful muscles, so he's strong" and another to say "My character is a man, so he has powerful muscles, so he's strong."

Also @ thundercat.

But its not saying My character is a man so he has powerful muscles. Its saying My character is a man so he has slightly stronger muscles than a woman of the same size/build whatever.
What abouta case of a Wizard who has 5 strength? Even if he got upped to 6 strength he wouldnt be Stronger than a woman. Compare it to a genderless human clone. If he turned him into a male and retroactively altered his body to that of if he was male the same way, he would be different, same with female.

And as for choice, then the issue is telling your player what his character has to be like. And most people on this forum go against that. but if you want to exaggerate what about a campaign where there are no humans, what about one where they live in a society where one gender doesnt have equal rights. What if the only available races are Furry races. What if the DM doesnt allow the player to become a superpowerd mary sue. Everyone forces their players to be something, at some level.

"You say if i play a female character I will have this useful stat instead of this useful stat for free? Well i want the other stat so i guess i will be forced to play a man" just seems...off (the hypothetical reaction, not situation). What about being a human but wanting +2 con of a dwarf. Its very limited. But wait you can always houserule stuff.

And i dont remember anything about him forcing stuff on players. Seems like he was just exploring the option and wanted to get opinions. but no one is addressing that.

[Murdim]

Flaw: Female's Strength deficit
Prereq: Female
-1 STR
A balance-related nitpick : this flaw is, to put it buntly, completely broken. Female characters who don't have to care about Strength are basically getting a free bonus feat.

If you really want a sex-based mechanic, I'd say character traits (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterTraits.htm) are more adapted to it. Female metabolism gives -1 STR +1 CON, Male metabolism, +1 STR -1 CON.

[HunterOfJello]

Gender and attribute points might be valid for NPCS, but not for the adventuring PCs.

PCs are the outliers on the normality graph. They commonly include the 18 strength female barbarian along with the 6 strength male wizard. PCs aren't normal commoners, they are the strange and powerful anomalies in the fantasy world.

[DragonOfUndeath]

A balance-related nitpick : this flaw is, to put it buntly, completely broken. Female characters who don't have to care about Strength are basically getting a free bonus feat.

If you really want a sex-based mechanic, I'd say character traits (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterTraits.htm) are more adapted to it. Female metabolism gives -1 STR +1 CON, Male metabolism, +1 STR -1 CON.

changed it so you can only buy the corresponding feat

[ThunderCat]

Also @ thundercat.

But its not saying My character is a man so he has powerful muscles. Its saying My character is a man so he has slightly stronger muscles than a woman of the same size/build whatever.That's just a matter of degrees. You're also completely free to say that your character is stronger because he's a man. It's when you want to prevent someone else's character form being stronger despite being a woman that we have the issue.


And as for choice, then the issue is telling your player what his character has to be like. And most people on this forum go against that. but if you want to exaggerate what about a campaign where there are no humans, what about one where they live in a society where one gender doesnt have equal rights. What if the only available races are Furry races. What if the DM doesnt allow the player to become a superpowerd mary sue. Everyone forces their players to be something, at some level.But in those cases, most choices are the same for all players. Not so for sex. Cross-playing is simply not as free a choice as most other play styles.


And i dont remember anything about him forcing stuff on players. Seems like he was just exploring the option and wanted to get opinions. but no one is addressing that.Not in the OP. But the people you criticised didn't claim so either. They just said that forcing sex based stats on players (one option) was a bad idea. Other options have also been brought up, such as representing the difference with feats/flaws, giving bonuses to certain Str and Con based activities instead of the stats themselves, and adjusting the bell curve slightly for NPCs. Just because some of the posts were about possibly problematic aspects of certain options, or about how the differences were too small for stat differences, doesn't mean people are paranoid about sexism. There's a difference between being paranoid and being aware of the risks.

[Acero]

"Statistics mean nothing to the individual"
-Dr. Perry Cox

[Thajocoth]

I like your avatar, doublestaffing lizardfolk? Most of our doublestaffers in our community are gone right now, unfortunate.

Thanks. He's a Dragonborn Sorcerer. He used the staves as implements. (A 4e Character. I don't play the older editions.) I need to update the image (and my sig) because he now wields a staff and a scepter instead.

[Lev]

Thanks. He's a Dragonborn Sorcerer. He used the staves as implements. (A 4e Character. I don't play the older editions.) I need to update the image (and my sig) because he now wields a staff and a scepter instead.
Oh I was talking more on a performance standpoint-- by community I mean fire community.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz30WRg2JBo

[Ranielle]

Science? In my DnD?
It's more likely than you think.

Anyway, apart from forcing an old meme my opinion on the matter is simply that since the fantasy world is vastly different from ours in history, the human race wouldn't evolve quite as similar to their real world counterparts.

There is no saying that the gods who created the humans in any given setting didn't create them equal.

[Callista]

Or equal enough not to matter, anyhow.

In this case, I think the flexibility allowed by attribute-free gender selection really outweighs any possible realism that might be afforded by making men slightly stronger or women slightly less impulsive or any other cultural or biological difference we've discovered. I mean, yes, obviously men and women are different--that's the way it is, and I think it makes us stronger because a diverse, cooperative society allows you to draw from a variety of abilities for a variety of solutions to whatever problems you might face.

But there's a point at which realism starts to interfere with your ability to role-play the character you want; and this is quite comfortably beyond that point. There's no reason to impose gender differences in the mechanics.

[The Glyphstone]

I think we're done here, requesting lock.

Great Modthulhu: Agreeing, honestly. It's for everyone's own good that this get shut down before infractions start getting handed out.

Locked.