Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JulesCARV 01-28-06, 07:26 PM	Perhaps this topic has already been done to death. If so, ignore this post. What do you think of the idea of giving players the option of either playing "androgynous" characters, with no ability adjustments, as with D&D now, or allowing males to take +2 to strength and -2 to dexterity, and females to take -2 to strength and +2 to dexterity? I don't think that a DM should make sex adjustments mandatory. Each player should have the option, individually, of applying them to his character or not. The one concern is that this would make characters a bit more powerful. In general, a "+2 of one ability score, -2 of another" ability adjustment makes a character more powerful (18 in the plus and 12 in the minus only costs 16 points (10 + 6), rather than 20 points (16 + 4) as with unadjusted). I think it's also somewhat true of rolled character generation, but in a somewhat different way.
twelvedrunkenmonkeyz 01-28-06, 08:20 PM	Really that isn't the place of the DM. I mean I'm a pretty strong guy, and there are some chicks that are stronger then me. I mean they aren't the norm, by far they are most likely the musckle females. Not to mention the anatomy of humans wouldn't apply to other races, unless already noted. I mean I have a D20 future game I am planning on running and there is a race where the females and males have different stats, but that is due to specialized evolution. The females are the leaders and the males the brute force of thier empire (they are called the Swarg). I mean for instance seeing as the Drow are usually female dominated and in AD&D described as slightly larger then the males does that mean they have a Str bonus and the males have a Dex bonus? No.
Objulen 01-28-06, 08:30 PM	Men have an inherent tendency to physical strength, while women actually have more of an inclination to physical endurance; Arcanum reflected this by giving women -1 str +1 con, though it is built along the lines of the Fallout system. Personally, I don't see the point. You're dealing with individuals, not demographics, so natural inclinations aren't that big of a deal, especially when they aren't that impressive. A woman who works out can easily become quite strong, and the average nerd (like myself) who doesn't do so won't be as strong as stereotypes would have.
Darth Sephiroth 01-28-06, 08:38 PM	You also need to take into account races that are reptilian (Or similar) in origin where the female is usually larger than the male.
Gaia 01-28-06, 09:49 PM	I get your point, I've also thought about it and I agree with it. Men have an inherent tendency to physical strength, while women actually have more of an inclination to physical endurance; Arcanum reflected this by giving women -1 str +1 con, though it is built along the lines of the Fallout system. I also think this would be more realistic. Not to mention the anatomy of humans wouldn't apply to other races, unless already noted. I think that too. Humans are just like we (in reality) are, but other races are fantasy races. They don't have to be just like humans.
Fox Lee 01-28-06, 10:33 PM	Perhaps this topic has already been done to death. If so, ignore this post. Certainly, but the reason that happens is that people can't resist the urge to weigh in again and again :p What do you think of the idea of giving players the option of either playing "androgynous" characters, with no ability adjustments, as with D&D now, or allowing males to take +2 to strength and -2 to dexterity, and females to take -2 to strength and +2 to dexterity? I think it's a fundamentally bad idea. You're many steps ahead of the idiot pack by saying that such adjustments shouldn't be mandatory, but this is still an artificial disadvantage for those who like to play strong females or dexterous males. It doesn't force the penalty, but it still raises the bar, meaning that the penalty is effectively there anyway - a max-str female can never be as strong as a max-str male (or genders reversed, dexterity). Even if it's not manditory, it unfairly disadvantages people who don't play to the accepted real-world norms - hardly a good idea for a fantasy game. It's a bad idea because in a game which is bursting at the scenes with magic, nonhumans, divine inteference and other things that mean biology and evolution are totally screwy, there is no actual reason that females would be weaker and more dexterous than males, and vice-versa. Setting aside the fact that most races claim to have been made by a god (rather than having evolved), this is a world where changing your gender can actually truly be done, even to the point of reproductive facility and whatnot, and it's relatively easy at that. If protecting the childbearers is an issue (this is usually the argument people use to tell me that ability scores would still be naturally skewed), one can just make more childbearers. It's a bad idea because even if there were these differences for some reason, they would not be significant enough to warrant actual numerical adjustment. Surely it's not sensible to suggest that the strength difference between an average real-world male and an average real-world female should be as significant as the strength difference between an average human and an average halfling - a creature that is roughly the size of a child? It's a bad idea because giving any of the basic races the chance for a +4 stat adjustment is generally a bad idea. The basic game makes certain assumptions based on the default player races, so you need to be careful - even when you're making adjustments which are technically balanced (a bonus here, a penalty there). Finally, it's a bad idea because dex is a more universally valuable attribute than strength. Males will be artificially disadvantaged as a whole. That's sexism! :p
PerennialRook 01-28-06, 11:18 PM	I use traits (as per UA) which I have created, Masculine and Feminine. The first gives you +2 to any physical ability score and has the drawback of -2 to any mental ability score. The latter trait gives the opposite.
Kem 01-29-06, 12:58 AM	Are you saying the difference between a Gnome and a Half Orc is the same as between a Male Human and a Female Human in terms of strength? Or that the difference between Humans and Elves in terms of dexterity is TWICE the difference between human males and females? Due to the diversity of races in D&D I'd recommend focusing on the ability score differences between races as opposed to between sexes unless its really obvious. Like Black Widow Spiders. Otherwise have the differences show some other way.
Objulen 01-29-06, 01:02 AM	If you really want to stress it, you could give males a bonus to carrying weights and a +1 bonus to strength related skills, and give females +1 to fortitude saves.
Fox Lee 01-29-06, 03:49 AM	Are you saying the difference between a Gnome and a Half Orc is the same as between a Male Human and a Female Human in terms of strength? Or that the difference between Humans and Elves in terms of dexterity is TWICE the difference between human males and females? Holy crap, I forgot that the gap would be four points rather than two, since both genders could apply the modifier. Okay, that's just nuts; there is no way that the difference between a full-bodied adult human and a child-sized halfling is half of the difference between average male and average female, even in the real world. That's insane.
Gilean 01-29-06, 04:34 AM	I use traits (as per UA) which I have created, Masculine and Feminine. The first gives you +2 to any physical ability score and has the drawback of -2 to any mental ability score. The latter trait gives the opposite.That's just so wrong. Men do have more frequent cases of mental problems, but being a male genius is also more frequent. Which you really can't model with attribute selection.
lostone 01-29-06, 11:52 AM	First off I'll say I won't do this in my games simply because it lends itself to even more min/maxing. I enjoy min/maxing, but there is plenty printed in the books without adding this. However, with that said, if I were to do something like this in a game it would be more like this: Keep in mind that in some races the female is stronger (drow, for instance), so I'm not labeling them male and female. more physical gender: +1 physical attribute, -1 mental attribute. less physical gender: -1 physical attribute, +1 mental attribute. If I was giving the players the option of using the above or using the androgynous stats, then I would probably change the -1 to -2 so there is more of a penalty for raising a stat. That would help offset the bonus players using the option might gain using this over players that do not. But really I'd say there is no need for this kind of system. If you want to go with the idea that males are stronger in a given race, limit females to no more than 16 rolled in that stat. That ensures that no female will have the same potential as a male in that stat.
PerennialRook 01-29-06, 04:08 PM	That's just so wrong. Men do have more frequent cases of mental problems, but being a male genius is also more frequent. Which you really can't model with attribute selection. Men are proven to be both less social (charisma) and unobservant (wisdom) than women, and we are talking about on the average, not the extreme. I did also forget to mention I limit the bonuses and penalties to the maximum and minimum ability scores for the race (a human male can't have a 20 Str, or a 1 Int).
NightEIves 01-29-06, 04:18 PM	Drow females are not neccarily stronger either. Its just they are a matriarchial society and hence, the females are the ones in positions of power. +2 str -2 dex, +2 dex -2 str is far too large a differnce between the sexes (Net: +4, -4) Applying to 1 sex only is asking for munchkins but would be more realistic than the first idea. (its still a bad idea) +1-1 would be even better if you HAD to make an adjustment, but again, you're asking for munchkins. (I rolled 17 15 12 10 10 8, i'll stick 17 on dex (now 18, and adds 1 to my dex modifier) and 15 in str (14, still same modifier). Overall this is just a bad idea :(
cynical 01-29-06, 04:53 PM	The easy way to do the is not with an ajustment but with a cap. Human Males haveing more str potential at charicture creation are alloud to take an 18 str. As the stongest male will alway be slightly stronger then the strongest female. The female would be capped at 17 at chariture creation.(Note it a charicture creation cap so a female later in her career can still surpass the male by allocating all of her level stats bonuses to str when a male might split is between str and con). On the flip side female get the upper cap on dex (18) and male get the lower cap here (17). As the most agile female will always be alittle more agile then the most agile male. You could impose simmilar cap on other races depending on how they are built. Solves the problem without getting into any huge game balance issues or provideing opportunities for massive min maxing. As far as other attributs go DONT touch them. Trust me the debate on the physical differances of the sexes causes enough heat, if the mental debate start it become a flame war.
NightEIves 01-29-06, 05:27 PM	The easy way to do the is not with an ajustment but with a cap. Human Males haveing more str potential at charicture creation are alloud to take an 18 str. As the stongest male will alway be slightly stronger then the strongest female. The female would be capped at 17 at chariture creation.(Note it a charicture creation cap so a female later in her career can still surpass the male by allocating all of her level stats bonuses to str when a male might split is between str and con). On the flip side female get the upper cap on dex (18) and male get the lower cap here (17). As the most agile female will always be alittle more agile then the most agile male. You could impose simmilar cap on other races depending on how they are built. Solves the problem without getting into any huge game balance issues or provideing opportunities for massive min maxing. As far as other attributs go DONT touch them. Trust me the debate on the physical differances of the sexes causes enough heat, if the mental debate start it become a flame war. Mechanically this works better, however this is still a bad idea. Example using the above. Women tend to be more agile or limber than men, whereas men are supposedly better able to judge spatial coordination and better hand-eye coordination. I believe both of these are covered by dexterity (Ranged attacks: Hand eye coordination and spatial coordination. Dex skill checks such as escape artist, or the dex bonus to ac: agile/limber) One could argue that men should have the better dexterity due to the fact that men on average have a better hand-eye coordination. Or, as above, that the more limber women should have better dexterity. Since dex is such a broad scope, no sex should get a bonus to it. I bet you could go through all the stats and find similar trends. Also, if my rogue gets lucky enough to roll an 18 to stick in dex, i dont want to get stuck playing a female character if i wanted to play a male. Nor does my barbarian whom rolled an 18 want to get stuck as a male if a female was the concept i had in mind.
cynical 01-30-06, 02:44 AM	Not a that its bad idea, just not an idea you like. Are you saying you cant be a Barbarian with a 17 str? Oh boo hoo you'll have to put the 18 into con instead. If you knew the mechanic you may not have had that exact character concept to begin with. Which is why you don't here people crying that there elf barbarian can't have an 18 con. Do you roll an 18 so often that this is an issue? Can you not play a rogue with only a 17 dex? Or if your roll is something like 18 12 13 10 10 10 reason would allow you to put the 18 in str (female) and then allocate the lost point to something else (like your 13). There is nothing until your epic that requires an 18 so there is no character concept you cannot play. So again the stat cap is the best fix of the possible method mention so far. Although i have thought of an alternative method to that even. A floating bonus point. After character creation you may add a single point to one stat, Str or int for males, (no i am not saying male are smarter it just males have higher tendency toward the analytical) And con or wis for female. Both sexes may use the floating bonus point for dex and chr. No stat may be raised above 18 with this method.
High Octane 01-30-06, 02:57 AM	I wouldnt change the stats, but you may want to consider things like bonuses on certain areas. Yes men and women are different. For example, women would get a bonus on search checks. Women are more detail oriented. Men might get a bonus or women might take a penalty for spot checks involving distances or ranged attacks from far away because men have better depth perception. Women might take a penalty to attack damage (but not bonus) since women dont have the same amount of upper body strength. Women might also get a bonus on fortitude saves involving pain. Women have a higher pain tolerance then men.
FriendlyBiscuit 01-30-06, 03:03 AM	Honestly, I'd be more inclined to give men +1 to str and -1 to wis, and give females +1 to cha and -1 to str. But even then, it would be a bad idea. Alternatively, females could have a +1 to Will saves, and men a +1 to Fortitude saves. Androgynous/sexless races, however... I dunno. Maybe a +1 vs all Enchantments, because they don't really find other people as interesting as the horny masses who possess a gender.
Neverwrong 01-30-06, 07:31 AM	Honestly, I'd be more inclined to give men +1 to str and -1 to wis, and give females +1 to cha and -1 to str. But even then, it would be a bad idea. Alternatively, females could have a +1 to Will saves, and men a +1 to Fortitude saves. Androgynous/sexless races, however... I dunno. Maybe a +1 vs all Enchantments, because they don't really find other people as interesting as the horny masses who possess a gender. Mwhahahaha. So true, so true.
Derrick 01-30-06, 07:49 AM	Fair warning: gender and sexuality is one of my areas of academic interest. :) A stipulation: this thread is about adjustment based on sex, not based on gender. A case could certainly be made for feats that represent gender socialisation; these should not be restricted on the basis of biological sex (after all, there have been males raised as women and vice versa). If someone wanted to indulge in such a project, it could be quite interesting, though I suggest that there ought to be more than just two such feats: the claims that gender is binary are somewhat suspect once you consider the mediating effects of class and race. So, with apologies, when I write "male" or "female" in this post, I'm referring exclusively to humans, and overlooking the existence of intersex persons. And one basic problem with the project: when you look at studies showing differences between the sexes, they tend to involve very small sample sizes. If that doesn't start alarm bells flashing, just think about what differences would be shown between males and females if the males were all D&D players and the females were all olympic athletes. (I'm thinking something like: Female +2 DEX, +2 CON, +1LA, Male -2 STR, -2 CHA, probably some bonuses with spellcasting out of pity. :D ) With those in hand, let's consider some of the claims being made on this thread: "Men are proven to be both less social (charisma) and unobservant (wisdom) than women, and we are talking about on the average, not the extreme." This one's contentious: the claims towards males being less social don't speak to the full spectrum of Charisma. Don't forget notions of leadership and the ability to frighten others (both of which have a lot to do with height), or, for that matter, supernatural abilities such as Divine Grace and some Arcane spells. If anything, studies might suggest that males are more likely to be evil than females, but I don't think we want to go down that path. As for observation, I think that's over-stressing the importance of Spot and Listen checks - heaven forbid that we forget about Divine Spellcasting! (Or have studies proven that females are the chosen servants of the gods? ;)) There's also Wilderness Lore and Will Saves to consider, and I don't think it's been shown that females are better at surviving in the wild or more able to resist mental persuasion. "Men have an inherent tendency to physical strength, while women actually have more of an inclination to physical endurance; Arcanum reflected this by giving women -1 str +1 con, though it is built along the lines of the Fallout system." I'm skeptical of this proposal. It's true that males tend to be bigger than females, which certainly helps when it comes to being stronger - but it also helps with absorbing physical damage! If D&D had a Body stat, like Tribe 8, there might be a case for giving males a higher rating here - but of course, that game's designers weren't interested in setting caps or modifiers: they assumed that players would assign traits in a plausible fashion. As with so many things about Tribe 8, I think they made the right call, and it seems like D&D's current designers have made a parallel decision. What we ought to keep in mind when translating our findings from the real world to D&D is that our world treats sex and gender very differently to most fantasy settings. When you look at D&D campaign worlds, males and females have essentially the same opportunities, and that's at least controversial in regard to our own societies; it's non-controversial to consider that in the D&D worlds, this equality is not a recent phenomenon. Final thought: If any changes are to be made in the way that sex is treated with in D&D, I suggest that it's height and weight. Given that D&D worlds have a fundamentally different evolutionary and social history to our own, taking on the hangover of big males and small females is naive or simply wrong-headed. Better to have a wider range of possible heights and weights and do away with the imported and inappropriate differences.
Objulen 01-30-06, 08:29 AM	I'm skeptical of this proposal. It's true that males tend to be bigger than females, which certainly helps when it comes to being stronger - but it also helps with absorbing physical damage! If D&D had a Body stat, like Tribe 8, there might be a case for giving males a higher rating here - but of course, that game's designers weren't interested in setting caps or modifiers: they assumed that players would assign traits in a plausible fashion. As with so many things about Tribe 8, I think they made the right call, and it seems like D&D's current designers have made a parallel decision. True enough. However, if you look further down, I gave a less invasive, modified statement -- +1 to strength-based skill checks and a bonus to carrying capacity for men (something small -- 5 to 10%), and +1 fort to women.
Derrick 01-30-06, 10:34 AM	True enough. However, if you look further down, I gave a less invasive, modified statement -- +1 to strength-based skill checks and a bonus to carrying capacity for men (something small -- 5 to 10%), and +1 fort to women. I don't find it a more compelling proposal. It's still relying on importing males and females from our world without adjustment for their context (which is obviously mistaken). There's also a problem in that raw physical size is a serious advantage in surviving exposure to poisons, one of the classic reasons for making a Fortitude save, not to mention that females don't seem to be particularly resistant to disease, another big ticket for this save. (There some gender-based differences in terms of susceptibility to particular diseases, but I'm unaware of any findings on broad-base resistance.) The suggestion that males gain a bonus to strength-based skills and carrying capacity is ill-motivated as well: should a male and female of the same height and weight have noticeably different strength - more pointedly, should the male even assuming the two have the same muscle mass (what we might crudely map with "Strength" in D&D) be stronger?
Millennium 01-30-06, 12:35 PM	Gender-based ability-score adjustments don't tend to go over very well with many players, particularly female players. It's generally assumed that adventurers, no matter their gender, already start their careers as creatures decidedly outside the norms for their species. Since adventurers are already abnormal, it stands to reason that they'd have somewhat different physical tendencies, which would in turn tend to even out the ability scores.
boredgremlin 01-30-06, 08:52 PM	I like the idea of a gender difference in stats. Men and women are different. So are humans and elves, which is why there is a difference in those races stats. If its okay to make humans and elves different based on broad generalities then its equally valid to make men and women different. However i like one of the above posters idea about capping starting ability scores better then assigning bonuses. To take it a step farther i would change all racial adjustments to instead be caps and minimums that are free to reach for starting scores. Since most people seem to use a point buy nowadays this would be simpler anyway. Lets take humans for instance. Humans being the default "joe average" of D&D start like normal with all stats at 8 and can be reduced down to 3 and raised to 18. But then you add in gender mods and the males strength now defaults to a 9 without costing any more points. And for instance his wisdom (because its intuition, a thing girls claim to be better at, and most guys dont care to argue about) would be down to 7 by default. And the maximums for the character would also shift 1 place each way. Same thing but reversed for a woman. This way Both genders are represented as being better at thier default good ability but its not oppressive, or even an automatic mechanical shift. 1 point is enough to be noticable socially sometimes so it fits but not enough to really change game balance much. Other races might have an even wider change but just bouncing the starting abilities and the minimums and maximums for each race by the 2 points from the PHB would easily accomplish the same thing, at least in a point buy game. It wouldnt work as unobtrusively in a game where you roll for stats, but oh well "thems the breaks". Like the genders, some systems are just better at different things.
Objulen 01-30-06, 11:05 PM	I don't find it a more compelling proposal. It's still relying on importing males and females from our world without adjustment for their context (which is obviously mistaken). There's also a problem in that raw physical size is a serious advantage in surviving exposure to poisons, one of the classic reasons for making a Fortitude save, not to mention that females don't seem to be particularly resistant to disease, another big ticket for this save. (There some gender-based differences in terms of susceptibility to particular diseases, but I'm unaware of any findings on broad-base resistance.) That is a good point. The suggestion that males gain a bonus to strength-based skills and carrying capacity is ill-motivated as well: should a male and female of the same height and weight have noticeably different strength - more pointedly, should the male even assuming the two have the same muscle mass (what we might crudely map with "Strength" in D&D) be stronger? That may not be. Are men generally larger than women? Remember, this is game, so it doesn't have to be precise -- making bonuses for having a larger size, then giving men a bonus to size, is a bit too involved for something so trivial. Then again, this is pretty trivial. If someone wants to spend the time actually designing an accurate, balanced buff that differentiates males and females, more power to them, but I honestly couldn't care less. It's not something I'm going to use.
Derrick 01-31-06, 12:13 AM	I like the idea of a gender difference in stats. Men and women are different. So are humans and elves, which is why there is a difference in those races stats. If its okay to make humans and elves different based on broad generalities then its equally valid to make men and women different. That's ridiculous. You haven't shown that males and females are different, you've just stipulated it. That's a reasonable move for elves - everything about elves is stipulated - but it's baseless when dealing with sex differences. It's also worth keeping in mind (as I've said upthread) that D&D's settings have an historical equality between the sexes, and likely quite different evolutionary pasts as well. It's folly to generalise from our world without at least thinking about what the change in context will mean. Humans being the default "joe average" of D&D start like normal with all stats at 8 and can be reduced down to 3 and raised to 18. But then you add in gender mods and the males strength now defaults to a 9 without costing any more points. And for instance his wisdom (because its intuition, a thing girls claim to be better at, and most guys dont care to argue about) would be down to 7 by default. And the maximums for the character would also shift 1 place each way. Same thing but reversed for a woman. So, you're saying that the difference in strength between a male and female human is as great as that between a human and a halfling? And that females in D&D are the chosen representatives of the gods? This way Both genders are represented as being better at thier default good ability but its not oppressive, or even an automatic mechanical shift. 1 point is enough to be noticable socially sometimes so it fits but not enough to really change game balance much. 1 point both ways means a 2 point gap. It's excessive and unfounded. For the record, the current men's world weightlifting record indicates to my eyes someone with 17 Strength on a good day (or maybe less Strength and some feats and/or class abilities): PCs are exceptional anyway!
JulesCARV 01-31-06, 01:41 AM	Personally, I see no justification for creating differences in mental ability scores between the sexes. I just don't think there's enough evidence to say there are real, inherent differences between the sexes in these matters. Hell, I don't think there's enough evidence to say that there are noticable differences between the sexes in these matters at all, whether inherent or social induced. I think I've seen enough, though, to be persuaded to drop the idea. It would just provide too many oppurtunities for stacking (a female halfling rogue could get dexterity in the 20s with little effort).
boredgremlin 01-31-06, 01:50 AM	That's ridiculous. You haven't shown that males and females are different, you've just stipulated it. That's a reasonable move for elves - everything about elves is stipulated - but it's baseless when dealing with sex differences. It's also worth keeping in mind (as I've said upthread) that D&D's settings have an historical equality between the sexes, and likely quite different evolutionary pasts as well. It's folly to generalise from our world without at least thinking about what the change in context will mean. Males and females are different. The average american male is 5'9 180 lbs according to most official sources, the average female is 5'5 130 lbs. Men who are in average shape also have a Lower percectage of fat by around 4% on the BMI. Not to mention you brought up the world wieght lifting record yourself so here it is according to the american powerlifters association.http://www.uspf.com/Records/records1.htm With a combined: squat, deadlift and benchpress total of 2557 lbs the male record holder is Brian siders. With a combined total of 1409 lbs the female record holder is Juanita trujillo. Now there's the human extremes that adventurers are supposed to represent. And i would call 1100 lbs a difference worthy a game mechanic. The strongest man was almost twice as strong as the strongest woman. So, you're saying that the difference in strength between a male and female human is as great as that between a human and a halfling? Yes it could very well be. Look at chimps, they are much smaller than us and way stronger pound for pound. Who says that dispite being small halflings might not have denser muscles, like a chimp. That would result in muscles being much stronger pound for pound and account for the fact that they arent much weaker then us. Or they could have much more effective Adrenal glands, or a semi magical metabolism. Unless your aware of some extensive study of halfling physiology that i am not? And that females in D&D are the chosen representatives of the gods?. Having a 1 point better modifier doesnt automatically make you the chosen of the gods. Its not even that impressive game wise. That argument is facetious. For the average human it still means they can only cast 1st level spells and still get no DC modifier. And thats with the extensive training and study that is assumed to go along with being a cleric. Not exactly gods chosen people in my opinion. Not to mention classes like monks or druids that use a high wisdom and dont have anything to do with gods, or generic clerics who dont have gods. Thats like saying that since STR is prime requisite for fighters, and halflings have a strength penalty, there are no halfling fighters and the gods of war spit on them daily. 1 point both ways means a 2 point gap. It's excessive and unfounded. For the record, the current men's world weightlifting record indicates to my eyes someone with 17 Strength on a good day (or maybe less Strength and some feats and/or class abilities): PCs are exceptional anyway! First off your wrong about the 17 STR. Assuming the benchpress part is roughly correlated to what you can lift over your head then with a benchpress of 804 lbs the record holders strength is 26 or 25 if you wanna spot him the 4 lbs. However you can bench more then you can lift over your head, so maybe the lift is only 1/2 of his bench that would make his strength 21 or 20 if you wanna spot him the 2 lbs. So its not a 17 at all, but instead the record holder has accomplished a feat of super-human strength according to the game mechanics. one that would require a human starting with an 18 strength to devote years and his entire non-epic carreer to developing strength. Secondly there is nothing excessive about a 2 point difference. There is a 2 pt difference between humans and all the other races in one way or another, and more then 2 for some like the half-orc. All this says is that there is as much physical difference between a human male and female as there is between a human male and an elf male. And less then the difference between a human male and a half-orc male. And those things are at least half human.
Fox Lee 01-31-06, 04:49 AM	1 point both ways means a 2 point gap. It's excessive and unfounded. For the record, the current men's world weightlifting record indicates to my eyes someone with 17 Strength on a good day (or maybe less Strength and some feats and/or class abilities): PCs are exceptional anyway! Damn fine point. Here's a thought for all you who insist on trying to force this unfortunate real-world limitation on a game where there is no reason for it to be borne out: PCs are special! This is not average Joe and average Jane, this is a group of people who have the making of legends. They are above and beyond "normal" limitations, and are without exception exceptional examples of their races. This is not a game where you (are intended to - your game may vary, but that makes it an exception and thus irrelevant) play the gritty and realistic everyday life of real-world medieval characters struggling to survive. This is supposed to be a game where you decide how you wish to kick arse, pick out your favourite shiney magic sword/axe/wand/horse whatever, and go bust out the heroics. I know this is shocking, but in a group where the attitude is that females should have lower strength scores, females will have lower strength scores. Because players get to make their character however they like, and their own views on what men and women "should" be like are a part of that. If you people are so intent on females being weaker and males being clumsier (or whatever your pet stats are for the scenario) why don't you just make your own characters like that, and let the player who wants a max-str female warrior play what they want?
Tyler Do'Urden 01-31-06, 05:45 AM	Make sexual ability boosts +1s. Human male - +1 Str, +1 Con. Human female - +1 Dex, +1 Cha. This sort of modifier will probably work for the base races, but for yuan ti or lizardfolk may have beefier women. Sexual differences don't generally have a big enough impact on the game to warrant game mechanics; roleplaying is usually enough (i.e. female characters tend to have more "feminine stats" by choice). There's not much to be gained by dwelling on it.
lostone 01-31-06, 07:48 AM	Males and females are different. The average american male is 5'9 180 lbs according to most official sources, the average female is 5'5 130 lbs. Men who are in average shape also have a Lower percectage of fat by around 4% on the BMI. Not to mention you brought up the world wieght lifting record yourself so here it is according to the american powerlifters association.http://www.uspf.com/Records/records1.htm With a combined: squat, deadlift and benchpress total of 2557 lbs the male record holder is Brian siders. With a combined total of 1409 lbs the female record holder is Juanita trujillo. I was going to mention that this morning while thinking about this thread I remembered reading somewhere (an article discussing whether women should be treated as equals in the military) that the hormonal differences between men and women contribute to the difference in muscle mass between the genders (as well as other differences such as men being more likely to have heart problems and baldness). I wish I remembered the source, but it was years ago and was some ammunition a student used in our science class debating the same topic. However, as previous posters have pointed out, this is a game. The above examples may not apply to all races, and really is just an unnecessary mechanic to add to the game. If you want to say that men or stronger than women on average, that is fine, apply it to the NPCs by using a stat cap for the NPCs, but do not impose it on the players. Any female adventurers who are strength based are going to be exceptional specimens, the equivalent of real world olympic athletes, etc. They are far above average and are the exception, not the rule. Besides, in medieval times women spent their time doing things like washing clothing, making/repairing clothing, cooking, etc. Men spent more time doing field labor, chopping wood, etc. Due to gender roles men were stronger because their daily chores built more muscle. However in a fantasy medieval setting, heroic women with high strength stats will have been through extraordinary circumstances that have forced them into a more male gender role where they are doing things that develope more muscle mass, raising their strength scores to a point where the muscle difference between them and the man standing next to them is negligable.
Derrick 01-31-06, 07:21 PM	Males and females are different. The average american male is 5'9 180 lbs according to most official sources, the average female is 5'5 130 lbs. Men who are in average shape also have a Lower percectage of fat by around 4% on the BMI. That's better, though it's worth noting that D&D already has adjustments for height and weight by sex. :) Keep in mind that 'male' and 'female' aren't entirely natural categories. Perhaps as many as 4% of births fall outside of these biological ideals, and are treated with surgery and/or hormones in order to 'normalise' their sex. 'Average shape' is also constructed: what does that actually mean? Is it measured by endurance? Strength? Median bodytype? Not to mention you brought up the world wieght lifting record yourself so here it is according to the american powerlifters association.http://www.uspf.com/Records/records1.htm Forgive me for my rabid internationalism, but I went with the International Weightlifting Federation (http://www.iwf.net/wrec/world.html) The records there are somewhat tamer, which really makes me wonder about the Powerlifting Association. However, yes, I agree that the strongest males seem to be stronger than the strongest females. On the other hand, the strongest humans in D&D are stronger than the strongest humans on earth. On halflings: Yes it could very well be. Look at chimps, they are much smaller than us and way stronger pound for pound. Who says that dispite being small halflings might not have denser muscles, like a chimp. That would result in muscles being much stronger pound for pound and account for the fact that they arent much weaker then us. Or they could have much more effective Adrenal glands, or a semi magical metabolism. Unless your aware of some extensive study of halfling physiology that i am not? A big male chimp weighs more than I do. A big male halfling weighs about a quarter of what I do. Perhaps I'm being narrow-minded, but I don't think that these creatures are really part of the same category. Halflings (and, by extension, Gnomes) are brought up because they're about the size of children. While I'm not arguing that they should be substantially weaker than they currently are (after all, an extraordinary halfing is still amazingly strong!), I think it's worth questioning any programme that sets out to award the same sort of gap between male and female as there is between Small and Medium creatures. Having a 1 point better modifier doesnt automatically make you the chosen of the gods. Its not even that impressive game wise. That argument is facetious. For the average human it still means they can only cast 1st level spells and still get no DC modifier. And thats with the extensive training and study that is assumed to go along with being a cleric. Not exactly gods chosen people in my opinion. Not to mention classes like monks or druids that use a high wisdom and dont have anything to do with gods, or generic clerics who dont have gods. It's a 2 point modifier, because you wanted to give males -1 and females +1. Ask around: you'll find very few players who would not take 2 wisdom for their Cleric character if they could get it. It also means that the greatest powers that the gods grant to their mortal followers (high level spells) are within the reach of females, but not males. Sounds to me like you're advocating females as the chosen of the gods. What's a prime requisite? I don't find any mention of that in 3.5, and don't recall seeing it from 3.0. :confused: [quote=boredgremlin]First off your wrong about the 17 STR. Assuming the benchpress part is roughly correlated to what you can lift over your head then with a benchpress of 804 lbs the record holders strength is 26 or 25 if you wanna spot him the 4 lbs. How about we assume that the clean and jerk is roughly equivalent to what you can lift above your head, given that it is, after all, lifting a weight above your head? (This estimate is probably a little high: it's unlikely that the weightlifter could stagger 5 feet with the weight cleaned in the same way as D&D will allow.) The clean and jerk record is 263kg, which is a little less than 580 pounds. That's half-way between 17 and 18 strength, but Rezazadeh has trained for years to be able to do this, so I suspect that he has a feat (or two - even if he doesn't have levels, he's still human!) invested in weightlifting. So its not a 17 at all, but instead the record holder has accomplished a feat of super-human strength according to the game mechanics. one that would require a human starting with an 18 strength to devote years and his entire non-epic carreer to developing strength. Of course... if we're granting Rezazadeh any increases to his strength from levels as well as feats, then the maximum human strength starts looking substantially lower, doesn't it? Secondly there is nothing excessive about a 2 point difference. There is a 2 pt difference between humans and all the other races in one way or another, and more then 2 for some like the half-orc. Again, other races are stronger, weaker, faster, etc. by stipulation. We have no knowledge of them, so we simply dictate that they are a certain way. It does not contradict the evidence, simply because there is no evidence. All this says is that there is as much physical difference between a human male and female as there is between a human male and an elf male. And less then the difference between a human male and a half-orc male. And those things are at least half human. And they're half something we have no knowledge of!
kdyal 01-31-06, 07:53 PM	This really gets messy. And I think it boils down to perspective. The STR stat is less about raw muscle and more about application thereof. But that being said, a woman is still unable to carry nearly as much for as long as a man of comparable height. Admittedly, D&D is a fantasy setting, but the majority of women I know are unable to do more than two or three pushups (not all, but the majority). The difference in upper body strength between men and women of similar levels of physical activity is tremendous. That being said, I would not apply a bonus or penalty to any stat based on sex. What would make more sense it to apply the differences where they show up. By halving a female human's lifting/carrying capacity and increasing her Fort (higher tolerance to pain) and Reflex (more flexible) saves by +1. I would apply a similar change to elven and half-elven women but make it 3/4 capacity for half-orc and dwarven women and the size S women (gnomes, halflings, etc.)
Derrick 01-31-06, 08:30 PM	This really gets messy. And I think it boils down to perspective. Put me down for an order of boiled perspective, too. :) The STR stat is less about raw muscle and more about application thereof. But that being said, a woman is still unable to carry nearly as much for as long as a man of comparable height. Hold on. Shouldn't that be comparable height and weight? I can't carry nearly as much as a friend of mine who's twelve centimetres shorter than me (perhaps because he's also ten kilograms heavier). Admittedly, D&D is a fantasy setting, but the majority of women I know are unable to do more than two or three pushups (not all, but the majority). The difference in upper body strength between men and women of similar levels of physical activity is tremendous. Sort of. A lot of this comes down to the effects of testosterone on building muscle mass; males have higher levels of testosterone (though, IIRC, the gap between low male levels and high female levels is less than the gap between high male levels and low male levels, or the gap between high female levels and low female levels). While what you're saying is true of the average individual, PCs are anything but average. That being said, I would not apply a bonus or penalty to any stat based on sex. What would make more sense it to apply the differences where they show up. By halving a female human's lifting/carrying capacity and increasing her Fort (higher tolerance to pain) and Reflex (more flexible) saves by +1. I would apply a similar change to elven and half-elven women but make it 3/4 capacity for half-orc and dwarven women and the size S women (gnomes, halflings, etc.) This is more or less the same thing in different clothes. To treat with the specific proposals: Fortitude Saves: Pain resistance is still controversial. The only consistent report from studies I've seen is that it declines with age; some studies claim that males are more resistant (I recall seeing findings that even very old males are more resistant to pain than females in their prime), others that females are. The problem in this sort of research is subjectivity: am I in less pain because I insist I'm in less pain (boys don't cry!) or is there something more concrete to study. Even if we did have clear findings one way or the other, most Fortitude saves don't treat with pain resistance; they're more focused on immunity and tolerance to toxins. Immunity tends to be equivalent (if not uniform), and toxin resistance (all else being equal) favours larger organisms. Reiterating the point, Fortitude saves deal with "a character's ability to withstand damage thanks to his (sic) physical stamina." (PHB 3.5, p308.) Reflex Saves: I can't say I know whether males or females are more flexible. (My intuition tells me that Western women will typically be more flexible than Western men, simply because of different upbringing, but I wouldn't generalise beyond that.) It doesn't matter, though: Reflex saves measure "agility or quick reactions" (PHB 3.5, p312). Lifting/Carrying Capacity: There is some evidence to support a change here (though that evidence also points towards a change in raw Strength scores). However, that evidence is all from our world, with our world's evolutionary and social history. We know, as a matter of fact, that D&D worlds have substantially different social histories (most have a very long history of equal opportunities for males and females) - and many D&D worlds don't have evolution (or at least, evolution as we know it!). Ultimately, if you want to have sex-based adjustments, nobody's going to stop you. What I'd encourage you to think about is why you feel the need to. Is it an essential property of a male character that he be stronger (all else being equal) than a female character? Or to put that another way: is a character less male if he is (all else being equal) not as strong as a female? Your answer probably says more about you than it does about the game.
The Great Alchemist 01-31-06, 10:14 PM	In reality, if we're really interested in that, men are much stronger than women. In fact, I would say that a 4 point different is accurate (+2 Str for men and -2 Str for women) is accurate if not rather generous to women. All studies done (and you can see the same trends from looking at weight lifting competitions) indicate that men have about twice the upper body strength of women and 50% greater lower body strength. Meaning, if Strength score were a linear measure that if the average woman had a Strength of 10, the average male upper body Strength would be 20 and the average male lower body Strength would be 15 - for an average male strength of about 17 or 18 in comparison to the average female strength. This is why I think that a 8 vs 12 average Strength is at least close to being accurate. Also, its a myth that women have more pain tollerance than men do, its actually the reverse. Men have a slightly higher pain tollerance than women do. I think that the unfortunate thing about trying to be realistic is that real life isn't balanced. When it comes to putting on armor, killing people with swords, going on long and dangerous journeys, and adventuring in general - the fact of the matter is realistically men are going to be much better at that kind of profession. And if you were going to accurately reflect this in the rules no one would want to play a female character. Personally, I am against sex based attribute bonuses or penalties - not bcause I think they are unrealistic but because I think they could be unballancing or disruptive to the game. We all know we want more female gamers to play and truelly realistic sex differences in the game would turn off a lot of them. Also, since player characters are exceptional anyway, its easy to write off a female barbarian with a Strength of 18 as a woman of legendary Strength. I say if a DM wants to have realistic differences between males and females, that it is better to simply show these differences with NPCs but not NPCs. Don't punish players who want to play a strong female character. PS - While discussing realism, halfling strength is completely rediculous. Once again, if we were to be realistic, the typical halfling would be 1/4 as strong as the typical human assumining similar proportional builds and muscles that function similarly.
Derrick 01-31-06, 10:49 PM	In reality, if we're really interested in that, men are much stronger than women. In fact, I would say that a 4 point different is accurate (+2 Str for men and -2 Str for women) is accurate if not rather generous to women. All studies done (and you can see the same trends from looking at weight lifting competitions) indicate that men have about twice the upper body strength of women and 50% greater lower body strength. Meaning, if Strength score were a linear measure that if the average woman had a Strength of 10, the average male upper body Strength would be 20 and the average male lower body Strength would be 15 - for an average male strength of about 17 or 18 in comparison to the average female strength. This is why I think that a 8 vs 12 average Strength is at least close to being accurate. The only yardstick we have for strength is carrying capacity, which doesn't seem to be linear (disclaimer: I am not a math major!). Judging by that chart, we'd be saying that if the average female had a strength of 10, then average male would have 15 "upper body strength" and about 13 "lower body strength" for an overall score of about 14. That maps fairly well to your +2/-2 figures. I think that the unfortunate thing about trying to be realistic is that real life isn't balanced. When it comes to putting on armor, killing people with swords, going on long and dangerous journeys, and adventuring in general - the fact of the matter is realistically men are going to be much better at that kind of profession. And if you were going to accurately reflect this in the rules no one would want to play a female character. Insert my usual problem with taking what is the case in our world and using it in a D&D world. In most D&D settings, humans didn't evolve, they were created by the gods - so the claims of realism have to hinge on that fact. Is it realistic that the gods would create males much stronger than females? Why?
The Great Alchemist 02-01-06, 12:05 AM	Insert my usual problem with taking what is the case in our world and using it in a D&D world. In most D&D settings, humans didn't evolve, they were created by the gods - so the claims of realism have to hinge on that fact. Is it realistic that the gods would create males much stronger than females? Why? Well, that being the case why did the gods create two sexes at all? Why does one bare children and the other not? Wy must these beings sleep and eat and breathe? Its generally assumed that humans are in fantasy as humans are in reality, though that is ultimately up to the DM and his vision of the world. Its prefectly alright to say as DM that in this world humans are biologically different. Personally I prefer my fantasy to have a more realistic medieval European feel but that's just a matter of taste. Remember, I didn't say I thought PC's should have bonuses or penalties based on sex, I just said I think such modifications would be realistic. I Think that male and female PCs should be equal because the alternative creates all sorts of problems from hard feeling and controversy, to metagaming and min-maxing, to punishing role playing preference. But, in the typical D&D game I run, if the party encounters some random human peasants, the women will have Strength's of 8 and the men Strength's of 12.
boredgremlin 02-01-06, 12:06 AM	This really gets messy. And I think it boils down to perspective. The STR stat is less about raw muscle and more about application thereof. But that being said, a woman is still unable to carry nearly as much for as long as a man of comparable height. Admittedly, D&D is a fantasy setting, but the majority of women I know are unable to do more than two or three pushups (not all, but the majority). The difference in upper body strength between men and women of similar levels of physical activity is tremendous. That being said, I would not apply a bonus or penalty to any stat based on sex. What would make more sense it to apply the differences where they show up. By halving a female human's lifting/carrying capacity and increasing her Fort (higher tolerance to pain) and Reflex (more flexible) saves by +1. I would apply a similar change to elven and half-elven women but make it 3/4 capacity for half-orc and dwarven women and the size S women (gnomes, halflings, etc.) I can agree with this except for the point of fortidude. As much as we equate Fortitude with pain endurance, its just not the case in D&D. There are very few physical effects having anything to do with pain that require a fort save. There are some magic effects that cause pain, but some of those require a will save, not a fort save. The fort save is most often used for things like resistance to poison which is based on mass, resistance to desease which seems to be not be affected by gender in most deseases, and resistance to energy drain effects and who knows why either gender would be better or worse at those, if there is any difference at all. Then there is the occasional fort save for forced marching or hostile enviroments like heat or cold, which are also things men are better at usually. So really a fort save is evenly divided between being better for men and equal for both. However since many pain saves are will effects i would say it stacks towards women, and one might say that charm and other will effects work on the brain in some logical way but exagerrated. In that case the average womans greater practice and social engineering for emotional and socail situations would also lend them to be better able to resist will effects. Therefore i would propose giving women a bonus to the reflex and will saves. and probably leave fort alone and give men the extra STR point, mainly because so few DM's track carry wieght that its not really much of a bonus.
boredgremlin 02-01-06, 12:17 AM	Insert my usual problem with taking what is the case in our world and using it in a D&D world. In most D&D settings, humans didn't evolve, they were created by the gods - so the claims of realism have to hinge on that fact. Is it realistic that the gods would create males much stronger than females? Why? Who says humans didnt evolve in D&D? For thousands of years people in the real world that they were created by gods, or giant turtles, or gibbering monster apes, or thousands of other goofy creation myths that were all over our planet. Just because D&D people think the gods created them doesnt mean they are right. And even of the gods claim it that doesnt make it true. Lets not forget that in many campaign settings human beings as a race are older then the majority of thier gods. Forgotten realms is the worst offender but other settings have it too. At the rate some settings have gods offed and replaced by mortals there might not even be any gods left who are old enough to know how the hell humanity came about and they are just repeating the same tired myths as gods that they learned as mortal children. In fact the more i think about it the more divine creation actually favors one gender being closer to the gods. After all if you create one gender to do all the hard work then it only makes sense to make the other gender better at wandering around and preaching about how great the gods are. After all was there ever a D&D god who wasnt vain enough to want a whole group of people who are designed to tell people how great that god is? more to the point, if a god created a race with 2 seperate genders rather then being asexual then what would be the point if the races were exactly the same? Seems like a huge waste of time and effort, unless it was maybe the god of art who created intelligent species and the genders were created just for artistic expression. Either way, evolution or divine creation there ample reason and evidence for large differences and no plausible reason for the two genders to look so different and be so different in biological function but not be mechanically the same. Gods are smarter the political correctness, lol man chimps are smarter the political correctness. Truth is truth, whether society has trained you to be comfortable with it or not.
Derrick 02-01-06, 06:35 AM	Well, that being the case why did the gods create two sexes at all? Why does one bare children and the other not? Wy must these beings sleep and eat and breathe? Its generally assumed that humans are in fantasy as humans are in reality, though that is ultimately up to the DM and his vision of the world. Its prefectly alright to say as DM that in this world humans are biologically different. Personally I prefer my fantasy to have a more realistic medieval European feel but that's just a matter of taste. Realism is precisely what is up for grabs. However, if your fantasy has historical gender oppression, then, yes, by all means, reach for the attribute modifiers; they make sense in this context and reinforce the setting. ("Why would I play a female character? They're just second-class!") If it does not (and it doesn't seem to) then we should wonder whether differences based on sex make sense. Before going any further, I'll see if I can answer those rhetorical questions: Eating and breathing seem like a fair assumption for most creatures; we can conceive of creatures that don't have to, but attempting to identify with such a beast probably puts them beyond the ken of roleplaying. I'd generally contend that humans are way too sexy to get into the idea of playing sexless creatures - oh, sure, some people do play such creatures, and seem to be enjoying it, but it doesn't seem like the way to go for most of us. So, simply put, ridding ourselves of sexes in D&D doesn't seem like a useful project. Sleeping, on the other hand, is up for grabs in fantasy settings - elves, famously, do not engage in such behaviour. Ditto for modifiers based on sex. Remember, I didn't say I thought PC's should have bonuses or penalties based on sex, I just said I think such modifications would be realistic. I Think that male and female PCs should be equal because the alternative creates all sorts of problems from hard feeling and controversy, to metagaming and min-maxing, to punishing role playing preference. But, in the typical D&D game I run, if the party encounters some random human peasants, the women will have Strength's of 8 and the men Strength's of 12.] Sounds a bit strong for "realistic" peasants, to be honest. :) Seriously: why are you treating sex as something realistic, but glossing over class differences? If it's plausible to talk about the advantages of testosterone, then surely the advantages of a good diet are important, too? Who says humans didnt evolve in D&D? For thousands of years people in the real world that they were created by gods, or giant turtles, or gibbering monster apes, or thousands of other goofy creation myths that were all over our planet. Just because D&D people think the gods created them doesnt mean they are right. And even of the gods claim it that doesnt make it true. Lets not forget that in many campaign settings human beings as a race are older then the majority of thier gods. Forgotten realms is the worst offender but other settings have it too. At the rate some settings have gods offed and replaced by mortals there might not even be any gods left who are old enough to know how the hell humanity came about and they are just repeating the same tired myths as gods that they learned as mortal children. The main reason to not take seriously claims of evolution operating in D&D is that natural selection doesn't appear to operate in D&D settings. Creationism is actually the only decent explanation for the ecologies of these worlds. In fact the more i think about it the more divine creation actually favors one gender being closer to the gods. After all if you create one gender to do all the hard work then it only makes sense to make the other gender better at wandering around and preaching about how great the gods are. After all was there ever a D&D god who wasnt vain enough to want a whole group of people who are designed to tell people how great that god is? Boccob isn't. :) It might also be worth thinking about what sort of proportions would be appropriate for that kind of plan. Does it make sense to have (roughly) 1 worker to 1 preacher? Doesn't seem like it to me. I mean, maybe in a species that didn't tend towards pair-bonding (like Lions), this kind of division of labour would make sense. more to the point, if a god created a race with 2 seperate genders rather then being asexual then what would be the point if the races were exactly the same? Seems like a huge waste of time and effort, unless it was maybe the god of art who created intelligent species and the genders were created just for artistic expression. I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Here's what I think you mean: "What would be the point in a deity creating a race that had 2 separate sexes, if those sexes were exactly the same? That would be a huge waste of time, unless it was for aesthetic reasons." (If that's not a fair paraphrase, then my reply is just ill-grounded; accept my apologies ahead of time and disregard.) First and foremost, the difference between male and female, even if other capabilities are equal, should be patently obvious. And there are real-world species where that's the only difference; there's even fantasy species (Dragons spring to mind) in the same vein. Moreover, there aren't 2 separate sexes in reality. Biological sex doesn't fall naturally into male and female; as many as one in twenty-five live births falls too far outside of these ideals. You don't see many people walking around between male and female because these days, the medical profession "corrects" this "disorder" with hormones, and if "necessary" surgery. Either way, evolution or divine creation there ample reason and evidence for large differences and no plausible reason for the two genders to look so different and be so different in biological function but not be mechanically the same. Gods are smarter the political correctness, lol man chimps are smarter the political correctness. Don't be so insulting. The issue is contentious precisely because both positions are plausible. Truth is truth, whether society has trained you to be comfortable with it or not. That's a fascinating epistemic position. I take it that you have special access to 'truth' - presumedly because you are comfortable with it? That makes me wish I'd been raised to be comfortable with the 'truth': it would certainly save time 'wasted' on reason and deliberation.
zombiehands 02-01-06, 08:17 AM	I way I handle sexual strength differences is to give the heavier (if they are both the same size) fighter +1 on grapple/strength checks. By the height/weight tables males generally get the bonus, and presto no sexism!
Gilean 02-01-06, 08:25 AM	Here's a simple fix: Strength can't be the sole highest stat of a human female. Limit your preferred stat for males.
Fox Lee 02-01-06, 07:50 PM	I way I handle sexual strength differences is to give the heavier (if they are both the same size) fighter +1 on grapple/strength checks. By the height/weight tables males generally get the bonus, and presto no sexism! Wait, what? You give males a free +1 to something, and nothing to females? That's ridiculous. Oh, sure, occasionally the females will get the bonus, but as you obviously know, it's a rare occurrence. Claiming that it's any kind of fair is rubbish. That's one of the worst suggestions thus far - at least the others propose an equally-weighted change! Here's a simple fix: Strength can't be the sole highest stat of a human female. Limit your preferred stat for males. So a female barbarian, no matter how much she has focused on strength over the course of her life, can never have it be her highest stats unless she also has something more "feminine" at an equal rating? That's a horrible "fix". For starters, the standard-array method which is apparently supposed to be the standard for creating characters doesn't let you have two equal stats, so you're basocally saying that her str has to be two points lower than her highest stat - the hell with that. Also, are you considering what a painful penalty this puts on a female character from a race which gets a strength bonus? Assuming that's her only stat bonus, she's now at a huge disadvantage compared to her male counterpart, since she has to pump a different stat - one that might not even be relevant to her build or character concept - to make sure her str isn't too high. That's ridiculous. Not to mention that - whether one likes min/maxing or not - making it so only males can be min/maxed str-based characters is offensively dumb. This is not a fix! Furthermore, even if people insist that humans in D&D should have the same physical differences as humans in the real world - and in response to "how do we know that the gods made them", I would say it's because THE GODS ARE REAL AND TANGIBLE BEINGS WHO SPEAK TO PEOPLE ON A REGULAR BASIS, genius - it's sillier still to impose the same gender-based penalties on the other races. What self-respecting dwarf would stand for being some wussy featherweight, male or female? What low-str half-orc would survive to maturity, given the brutal self-supporting upbringing they're supposed to have? If females have higher dex, why don't male halflings get mocked because of their comparative inadequacy at rock-throwing? Same for elves - since bows and rapiers are par for the course, the females would dominate their fighting forces if they had higher dex. The whole thing is stupid, which is why it was left out in the first place. I'm just glad that Wizards were smart enough to cotton onto that fact.
Derrick 02-01-06, 07:57 PM	I way I handle sexual strength differences is to give the heavier (if they are both the same size) fighter +1 on grapple/strength checks. By the height/weight tables males generally get the bonus, and presto no sexism! I'm no wrestler, but I always thought that reach was useful when grappling: does your system always favour the squat over the beanpole? Also, how much heavier counts? You can't just mean heavier (simpliciter): if you do, then that's going to mean that the 221lb Barbarian is a significantly better wrestler than the 220lb Barbarian, which seems a bit silly. On the other hand, a fixed measure will mean that the 2 ounce insect isn't a significantly better wrestler than the 1 ounce insect, and that seems silly, too. This strikes me as more unworkable than sexist... Here's a simple fix: Strength can't be the sole highest stat of a human female. Limit your preferred stat for males. I like this one even less than the stat modifier proposals. Are you suggesting that a human female couldn't be more strikingly strong than anything else? That seems completely unjustified. For what it's worth, my preferred solution is to use the Standard Array (aka, The Elite Array). A strength of 15 is plausible (though tremendous) for a male or female: increases for level can be regarded as legendary capabilities, and magic is, well, magic! :) As an added bonus, this makes the Challenge Rating system run more smoothly.
Talen Lee 02-02-06, 12:12 AM	The sheer density of the Silly Ideas that's being bandied around here is amazing. First and foremost, you don't give out +1s and -1s. It's bad design. Second, while in the real world, while human beings have an average strength differential, it's almost entirely based around the societies that have sprung up on our evolutionary path. Ignoring for a brief moment that a creationist perspective lacks those predispositions unless the god's also predisposed in the same way, without those same societal developments, if we look at the animal kingdoms, we find cultures that are equally gendered, or in some cases, where the male gender is completely marginalised. Female spiders eat their males, and there are breeds of fish where the male is so irrelevant that he lives inside the female to simply deposit sperm and eat her leftovers. D&D, by default, does not have any say-so on where the people of the world came from, so we have to instead extrapolate from what we do know. We know that, in D&D, gender does not alter your physical ability to deadlift, and your physical ability to balance, tumble, or move silently. So we can extrapolate that all gender means physiologically, aside from any assumed reproductive bits, is that one gender is generally a bit shorter and lighter than the other gender. Third, you don't need to alter something as fundamental as stats to represent this. This means that characters are artifically hampered in several directions based on gender. Suddenly, women are better off playing thieves and will always be sub-par fighters compared to males. And that, if you want to wave it under the flag of realism or not, is sexist. Sorry, but when you engineer the game mechanics that women are worse at doing something than men when they're both already well past what human beings can do (cf, strength 22 barbarian dragging two and a half thousand pounds at 40' a round), you're just being ridiculous. If you want to represent the physiological differences between men and women, this is the stupidest way to do it; give men a slightly increased carrying capacity and maybe give women a bonus to fortitude saves. Fourth, why this? Why start trying to make gender more relevant by using a character's ability scores? Do you have rules for periods in your game? What about the other components of the menstrual cycle? What about bowel cancer, heart disease, and prostate cancer, which more typically attack men? What about breast cancer, which is significantly more common in women? Why in the world do you need to have something more relevant to your character to say that they're male or female than the player's say-so? How about we make it that black people have lower will saves and higher fortitude saves than white people? Isn't that a great idea? How about the idea that virgins suffer penalties to ride checks? Why don't we just gather up every single stupid idea that doesn't belong in a heroic game of fantastic sword-and-sorcery style high adventure, and then try and shoehorn them into the game, using the design mentality with which god blessed a gnat and an even worse stylistic justification? God! It's D&D. When you find a human being who can crush a padlock in their hands, quite happily jump the world record high jump in full armour, talk their murderer into avenging them and wade through lava in short stints, then we'll talk about what's more 'realistic'. Until then, I'm going to be off having fun.
The Great Alchemist 02-02-06, 03:05 AM	No need to get angry over this discussion, if it is so troubling then maybe you shouldn't read the thread. :rolleyes: Some people have different tastes in their realism for role playing. Realism has been a topic of discussion in RPG circles for decades. This doesn't just include the idea of sex differences, but of weapon lethality, random attribute generation, hit point systems, prevalence of magic, alignment and belief, etc. Some people like gritty games where a single danger thrust could kill the mightiest hero while other gamers prefer systems of epic heroics where a high level character can single handedly fight armies. Some players prefer games were there is a magic shop on every corner and a ressurection is as easy as walking to the emergency room to get stiches, other people prefer games where magic is dark and mysterious and very few people have ever even seen it used. Some people like knights in shining armor who are always good and follow the letter and intent of the law and who fight against demons and the forces of evil, other gamers like a game with moral ambiguity where the knights in shining armor sometimes commit attrocities for the greater good and even the villains have people they care about. There isn't one right way or wrong way to adress this issue of realism, its a matter of how individual DM's and players feel about it and what kind of game they like. I see differences in genders as a similar (if somewhat more controversial) issue. Some people want realistic sex differences while others don't want this, for the most part the "no sex difference" side tends to dominate because of political correctness and the outrage many feel when this topic is broached. The other part of this issue, perhaps even more important than pure physical attributes, is game world politics. Is it OK to have a campaign world where women are seen as inferior as they were in almost every medieval society to ever exist? If a female paladin causes shock and outrage among 90% of the human(oid) population doesn't it matter alot more than whether she has a Strength of 16 or 14? If making women a little weaker than men outrages you then I hate to think of your reaction to setting with historically accurate gender roles. If people want such a realistic setting then let them have it, its part of what appeals to many people. Also, a world free of political correctness may be a welcome escape from the real world to many people. Of course, you can't be 100% realistic and trying to completely stat out sex differences would be extremely tedious (like the periods, etc.) but you can try if its important to you and a number of people have made suggestions for how it could work. I fear that it would be condusive to min-maxing but such is the nature of RPGs - particularly in D&D where the class system is based around min-maxing.
Talen Lee 02-02-06, 03:34 AM	No need to get angry over this discussion, if it is so troubling then maybe you shouldn't read the thread. :rolleyes: Yeah, if I feel that people are being stupid I shouldn't at all mention it to them. I certainly shouldn't do so in a fashion that's well-written, coherent, and features an explanation. Plus, if you feel strongly about something, you should definitely not contribute. Some people like gritty games where a single danger thrust could kill the mightiest hero...Great for them. The thing is, that game isn't D&D. D&D has some built-in assumptions. It plays out in a particular way. Claiming that people like to play other types of games doesn't change the fact that the system is built with assumptions in mind, and that if the assumptions in that game are so off-base with what you want, you should play a different system. D&D is a game where there aren't even the most basic of differences between gender. I think there's one class where you have to be female to enter, and that's in the FRCS. There are no feats I know of, and no skills I know of, where your gender makes any difference at all. To start adding those differences would take a significant undertaking, and it's either going to be a major overhaul, or it's going to require a whole new game. D&D is not a Very Realistic System. If your desire to add gender differentials is To Make It More Realistic, you've got a bad reason for doing so. It is a cinematic game (though not too cinematic) with a robust tactical combat system. You can make anything work, but by the stages you're talking about major overhauls, you are talking about a different system. There isn't one right way or wrong way to adress this issue of realism, its a matter of how individual DM's and players feel about it and what kind of game they like. I see differences in genders as a similar (if somewhat more controversial) issue. Some people want realistic sex differences while others don't want this, for the most part the "no sex difference" side tends to dominate because of political correctness and the outrage many feel when this topic is broached.They might actually dominate because their opinion is, y'know, sensible. I mean, refresh me on how many people you know who can throw fireballs? None? Right. So why is it 'realistic' to start screwing with this crap? The other part of this issue, perhaps even more important than pure physical attributes, is game world politics. Is it OK to have a campaign world where women are seen as inferior as they were in almost every medieval society to ever exist? If a female paladin causes shock and outrage among 90% of the human(oid) population doesn't it matter alot more than whether she has a Strength of 16 or 14? If making women a little weaker than men outrages you then I hate to think of your reaction to setting with historically accurate gender roles.Have 'em. Because that's people being buttheads to people. It's not the rules being buttheads to girls. It's a huge difference between what people think and what the laws of physics say. If physics said girls hit the ground harder and took more damage for doing so, that would be a sexual bias, which would, indeed, be sexist. If a society thinks women are chattels, then fine, so be it. You can change opinions, and people are allowed to be wrong. Rules and Flavour are very different beasts. If people want such a realistic setting then let them have it, its part of what appeals to many people. Also, a world free of political correctness may be a welcome escape from the real world to many people.Might I suggest that these are not the kind of people we want to be encouraging to hide from the real world, then? If the idea of treating womens as equals with men is such a thing you need a fantasy world where it's not the case, I'm going to direct you to the Gor novels and ask you to please explain how different you are from the enthusiasts of those. I fear that it would be condusive to min-maxing but such is the nature of RPGs - particularly in D&D where the class system is based around min-maxing.So, is it not strange that I actually suggested a less abusive fashion for doing so? You know, changing less pertinent parts of the rules than the bits people are suggesting? Changing stats is big. Changing the way ability scores are distributed is a huge problem, since that limits maximums and impinges very strongly on a lot of concrete things for players. Changing something less relevant but nonetheless present (a minor bonus on a type of saves, a boost to carrying capacity) is a far more fair way of representing flavour. You have a lot of better areas to affect such things. But even then, you're imposing limits that, for the better part, are best not imposed. If you want to make women and men better at different things, you're imposing an artificial game factor that penalises players for playing a particular gender, in the name of 'realism', when you're already playing a game with faeries, trolls, and a magical belt that changes your gender. Superfluously, I wonder how many women there are on this thread purporting sex-based changes? I know this is a silly question, since this is a male-dominated hobby. But it's worth considering.
The Great Alchemist 02-02-06, 04:50 AM	I'm not saying that you aren't allowed to comment, but even if you strongly disagree, being abrassive and calling people's ideas stupid doesn't add to the discussion, it only increases the potential for this thread to turn to flames and get locked (as I have seen happen to many identical threads as this). Also, as I said myself, I don't think there should be sex differences for player characters. When I run a D&D game I have male characters and females characters be completely equal in character generation and rules. Not because men and women are not different in my world, but because player characters are exceptional who don't necessarily fall within stereotypes. One great thing about D&D is that its an open system, when somebody plays D&D it isn't necessarily set in a certain world with certain cultures or certain rules. Because of this, I have seen lots of creativity on the parts of DM's. There is no deffinative answer for whether the sexes should be equal or why the gods did this or that if gods even exist. If humanity evolved instead of being created its still D&D, if somebody a DM decides to add +2 to the Charisma of elves they are still playing D&D. As for realism, despite what some might claim to the contrary, there is some level of realism required in D&D otherwise it wouldn't be fun. There are still two distinct sexes, gravity still pulls things down, a sword can slice flesh, etc. It is a world roughly based on the real world, and despite magic and heroics it still seeks realism. Of course there are no mages or dragons on earth, so the depiction of such is less subject to the laws of physics. If rampant lack of realism dominated people would be unhappy with the game - for example, if every peasant in a village could jump off of a 100' cliff and survive players would complain - the only reason they don't when it happens to a player character is that the PC is an epic hero and not some common mortal. Rules are indeed largely cinematic - maybe some people's cinematic vision is better represented by manly men and womanly women than by absolute sexual equality and similarity. And I think its wrong to portray someone who wants a realistic portrayal of sex differennces as some kind of scum bag who wants to mistreat women. Many opposed to gender based attributes have said that its fantasy and thus escapism, therefore let there be some unrealistic apsects for the purposes of escapism. I counter that by saying, that in real life many people aren't allowed to call a spade a spade and have to pretend that the politically correct propoganda is true and that it might be a welcome refief to some to have a fantasy where not everybody is equal and the same. In fact, I think that the entire issue has more to do with that than people may realize. I don't particularly think that D&D suffers for lack of sex based differences and if you wanted to adress to topic of realism there are alot better places to start (like the absurdity of hit points) but I think that this issue appeals to people because of a certain rebellious streak, a desire to not bow down to PC. Its a fantasy that is escapist because it presents reality instead of obscuring it.
boredgremlin 02-02-06, 05:39 AM	D&D is certainly escapist and not reality dependent. that doesnt mean we have to let howard deans vision of a non sexually different, non racially different, foriegn moral superior vision be true. As a play D&D fantasy for me was seeing my boss's head in an orc, or if the g/f had made me angry picturing her as the evil sorceress or cleric. Or if **** had happened that just made me feel especially powerless then being a hero with power to change the world was a great relief. I never felt that any of the silly stereotypes of D&D were essential to my fantasy beyond "orc bad, smash orc". Once you try too hard to escapse realism you lose the ability to touch a cord in people. Gaming is like great horror, all the best horror stories take the real world and twist it slightly. The reader can see himself or herself in the place of the main character, the world is real enough that the reader can see it really happening that way. All the great horrors or drama's are a slightly twisted mirror of the real world. Once you start saying "well its like that on earth but without rhyme or reason it isnt like that here" you lose peoples suspension of disbelief. Make a world where the players can really see things happening the way they do, or relating the scenes and situations to thier real life experiances and you have a game that players will never forget. Say that because its "fantasy" anything goes and no change needs to be justified, and you get a bunch of roll-players. Why should the players put more effort into it then the DM does? The DM's job is making a game touch players and feel real, that way its real escapism, not just a waste of time. If he ignores any tools he has to do that then the DM has started failing before he has even begun. As a side note, any DM who aspires to be truly great should read Stephan kings book on writing. It gives great insight on how to touch readers (players) and pull them into the story.
Talen Lee 02-02-06, 05:39 AM	And this is where the whole issue judders to a halt. What, precisely, is bad about political correctness? Why, exactly, would someone need to escape from treating other human beings as equals? I find the idea of prosecuting PC as if it were some kind of chain because it can be taken to its extreme (such as the idea that black people can't be racist) is stupid. Treat people like people. That's what political correctness is. If you want to avoid that, if you want to have a world and play in a place where people think less of people because of their race, colour of their skin, gender, religion, or even their particular political views, I am sorry, then that speaks of your character. It says that, for some reason, for whatever reason, you want these limitations in place, even if it's only one. And that, to me, is a worry. I am completely blown away by the idea that you'd want to live in a world where racism and bigotry were not just par for the course in a society* but ingrained in the biological makeup of the race because you didn't like that our world didn't have them**. What's not to like? Is it just something that infects (saaay) white, middle-class males because they're suddenly having to modify their behaviour? Treating people like people instead of like cutouts? This is a real mind twist for me. How are these things bad? * Which, I will note, you are free to do. People can still think that all halflings are lazy, all half-orcs are criminals, and that you should ask elves for financial advice. ** Of course, our world still has them, and, it seems, bigotry and intolerance are extremely thick on the ground, so why are you bothering to escape? Annoyed that a female get paid as much as a male when they're both mechanics or something?`
Fox Lee 02-02-06, 07:50 AM	The other part of this issue, perhaps even more important than pure physical attributes, is game world politics. Is it OK to have a campaign world where women are seen as inferior as they were in almost every medieval society to ever exist? If a female paladin causes shock and outrage among 90% of the human(oid) population doesn't it matter alot more than whether she has a Strength of 16 or 14? If making women a little weaker than men outrages you then I hate to think of your reaction to setting with historically accurate gender roles. Have 'em. Because that's people being buttheads to people. It's not the rules being buttheads to girls. It's a huge difference between what people think and what the laws of physics say. If physics said girls hit the ground harder and took more damage for doing so, that would be a sexual bias, which would, indeed, be sexist. If a society thinks women are chattels, then fine, so be it. You can change opinions, and people are allowed to be wrong. Rules and Flavour are very different beasts. Funny - I was gonna say "badly, and that's why we play D&D instead of a historically accurate setting". But yours works too.
Xeviat-DM 02-02-06, 11:54 AM	Perhaps there's another way to go about this? An actual adjustment to the ability score might not be appropriate, but what about an adjustment to all the things that characters gain size bonuses for (other than to hit and AC)? Large size grants a +4 bonus to bull rush, trip, overrun, disarm, sunder, grapple, and allows one to wield larger weapons. Large grants a -4 penalty to hide, and a -1 penalty to AC and attack. Small size grants a +4 bonus to hide, and a +1 bonus to AC and Attack. It grants a -4 penalty to bull rush, trip, overrun, disarm, sunder, grapple, and requires the wielding of smaller weapons. Testosterone simply makes male humans larger and stronger. I don't think it's a cultural thing; I wanted to google the olympic lifting records and compare the male record (representative of peak human achievement I'd say) to the female record; unlike other comparisons, both of these are taken from the same "pool" of peak human achievement. PS: People keep mentioning society, culture, and upbringing as a measure of why men are physically stronger than women, and that this wouldn't exist in D&D. First off, our society now has less limitations on sex based roles than ever before. Secondly, my example above of olympians and other athletes are both from the same culture of physical perfection, be they male or female. In fact, the female weight lifters arguably have more drive than the male ones; and while female weight lifters are stronger than men pound for pound, men still have the higher weight lifting capabilities. One bit of info that we spoke of in our anthropology course. Men are built for short bursts of strength and speed and are better adept at handling rapid traumatic pain and trauma; this led to men being the hunters in ancient societies, because men could fight and kill animals, and if injured, make it home. Women, on the other hand, are designed for stamina and are better adept at handling long aching pains; this lead to women being the gatherers in ancient societies, and helps them to tollerate the pains of child birth and cramps. If a woman's strength range is 1 to 16 and a mans is 5 to 20, you're still going to have women who are stronger than men; as you mentioned, the average women weight lifter is going to be stronger than the average male gamer. But it is true that this isn't going to add anything to the game: D&D characters are elite, so it's okay if there's 18 strength women running around.
Roxlimn 02-02-06, 12:38 PM	On Strength: Men are naturally stronger than women, and demonstrate more stamina when tested according on strength endurance tests. Having said that, there are cultural and familial variations that probably dictate the result just as much as gender does. A tall, strong woman who comes from a family line famous for its warriors will probably do exceptionally well, if not as well as a male from her own family. On Pain Tolerance: Pain is an experience. If you are unconscious, there is no pain. If your sensation is blocked, there is no pain. Pain tolerance is the level of tolerance for perceived pain. If you do not perceive pain, then your pain tolerance is not being tested, regardless of what is being done. Pain tolerance testing is extremely controversial, especially when applied along gender lines because it raises the question of why you're doing it. Are you doing it to justify discrimination of some sort, or for some beneficial end? Generally speaking, among pain specialists, pain tolerance and pain thresholds vary more by individual and culture than it does by gender. To give perspective to those who claim that women are less tolerant of pain, bear in mind that in some cultures, women are expected to have their external genitalia essentially mutilated, and then sewn, without comment. Likewise, nonpharmacologic pain control techniques taught to women by women in particular cultures allows them to tolerate the pain of labor and childbirth while working alongside their men in the fields, immediately before and after delivery. On the other hand, male European soldiers in the 19th century, especially British soldiers, were conditioned to endure pain without comment, through extraordinary social and peer pressure. One general was famously noted to have calmly withstood amputation of his lower leg (though that could be because of a nerve injury related to the gunshot). Women are noted to release more endorphins in response to a painful stimulus, particularly after the birth of their first child. It's theorized that childbirth lowers the threshold for the release of these chemicals. But then, if the pain is less, and the pain threshold is more, can we fairly say that they can tolerate pain better? If they're not experiencing pain, what's there to tolerate? The entire question is suspicious from the beggining and smacks of gender discrimination. Strength disparity is obvious. Pain threshold disparity is not. I've seen 260 pounds Marines quake at the sight of a hypodermic needle. Indeed, in some medical circles, musclebound men are notorious for their inability to tolerate ridiculously routine procedures. On health: It's no secret that there are more women in the world than there are men, and the disparity grows with age category. When a population demonstrates an equal amount of female children at birth, a significant disparity exists by age 8. More male children will have died. Generally speaking, more male children are born than female children, but in most populations around the world, women still outnumber men by the time puberty arrives. Women consistently outlive men across time and cultural influence. They have lower risks of heart disease and sudden death, and the make of their bodies and chemistry protects them from many threats that men routinely have to face, given the same environmental challenges. Women also endure privation better. They generally last longer and come out better from plagues and famines, and other similar catastrophes. If you want to demonstrate sexual differences without appearing to be biased, I believe that the single best method would be to impose a Strength penalty to women, counterbalanced by a Con bonus, plus minor plusses to disease resistance, maximum age rolls, and any checks to resist environmental damage, fatigue, or anything else affected by the Endurance feat. Males can use normal stats.
Kem 02-02-06, 03:53 PM	In reality, if we're really interested in that, men are much stronger than women. In fact, I would say that a 4 point different is accurate (+2 Str for men and -2 Str for women) is accurate if not rather generous to women. All studies done (and you can see the same trends from looking at weight lifting competitions) indicate that men have about twice the upper body strength of women and 50% greater lower body strength. Meaning, if Strength score were a linear measure that if the average woman had a Strength of 10, the average male upper body Strength would be 20 and the average male lower body Strength would be 15 - for an average male strength of about 17 or 18 in comparison to the average female strength. This is why I think that a 8 vs 12 average Strength is at least close to being accurate. Learn the system. Halflings are 4 points weaker for lifting weights. They are 2 points weaker for damage (and would be to hit if they wheren't small). Every 2 points of strength going up is 33% increase in carry capacity, and each 2 points down is 25% decrease in carry capacity. You wanna model carry capacity for men/women? Then do so. Your 4 point difference is much larger then this. Its a... 4 point carry capacity change. 4 Point Damage change. 4 Point to hit change. Are you saying the difference is 2 fighter levels of BAB in addition to weapon specialization? For a total of 3 feats? In addition to the carry capacity change? I dislike that strength has carry capacity attached to it. Its the only reason this stupid arguement comes up. Also, its a myth that women have more pain tollerance than men do, its actually the reverse. Men have a slightly higher pain tollerance than women do. Is it the difference between Dwarf and Human? Then it doesn't matter. I think that the unfortunate thing about trying to be realistic is that real life isn't balanced. When it comes to putting on armor, killing people with swords, going on long and dangerous journeys, and adventuring in general - the fact of the matter is realistically men are going to be much better at that kind of profession. And if you were going to accurately reflect this in the rules no one would want to play a female character. Yeah, hard to play Joan of Arc. You forget that characters are exceptional, as in not the norm. Personally, I am against sex based attribute bonuses or penalties - not bcause I think they are unrealistic but because I think they could be unballancing or disruptive to the game. We all know we want more female gamers to play and truelly realistic sex differences in the game would turn off a lot of them. Also, since player characters are exceptional anyway, its easy to write off a female barbarian with a Strength of 18 as a woman of legendary Strength. I ignore the differences betwen genders, not because there aren't any, but because in a land of dwarves, elves, halflings, dragons, orcs, and other fantastical creatures, they don't matter. An Orc gets a 4 point Str difference from a human. A Nymph, paragon of Beauty, able to stun (formally kill) with but a look, gets a +6 charisma. A Quasit gets a -2 on Str. Keeping these simple, easy to find comparisons in mind, I don't find the difference between man and woman, of any race, significant in terms of attributes. PS - While discussing realism, halfling strength is completely rediculous. Once again, if we were to be realistic, the typical halfling would be 1/4 as strong as the typical human assumining similar proportional builds and muscles that function similarly. Don't assume that. They are already just over half as strong.
Derrick 02-03-06, 12:48 AM	Testosterone simply makes male humans larger and stronger. I don't think it's a cultural thing; I wanted to google the olympic lifting records and compare the male record (representative of peak human achievement I'd say) to the female record; unlike other comparisons, both of these are taken from the same "pool" of peak human achievement. Yeah, but this is an evolutionary hangover. PS: People keep mentioning society, culture, and upbringing as a measure of why men are physically stronger than women, and that this wouldn't exist in D&D. I keep mentioning the absolute equality and history of equality in D&D, going back into prehistoric times and probably dating back to the creation of the human species in the setting. Nobody is particularly interested in rebutting it; all that turns up is "aww, well, it wouldn't have to be that way because I think an essential part of being male is the ability to manhandle a woman." First off, our society now has less limitations on sex based roles than ever before. It's very recent, and it's still nowhere near as egalitarian as D&D. We know, for instance, that malnutrition doesn't just stunt an individual's growth; it stunts their children's growth, and their grandchildren's growth: it takes quite a long time to work out historical deficits. Secondly, my example above of olympians and other athletes are both from the same culture of physical perfection, be they male or female. Oh, sure. That's why women's sports are low-impact versions of men's sports. (Even Tennis!) That's why women's sports in U.S. high schools have only been federally funded since 1972 (Nice one, Tricky Dick!) and why women's athletics programmes in U.S. Colleges still get less than a quarter of athletics money. That's why sportswomen are being evaluated on looks, not ability. The culture is exactly the same: Patriachal.
Kem 02-03-06, 12:59 AM	The culture is exactly the same: Patriachal. In Western Society, being Patriachal is a "recent" event. Even the Vikings where more Matriarchal then we are today. Wish I could spell though.
Derrick 02-03-06, 01:15 AM	In Western Society, being Patriachal is a "recent" event. Even the Vikings where more Matriarchal then we are today. Wish I could spell though. Hellas, though? Or Rome? These were pretty seriously male-dominated societies. I won't pretend to know too much about the Norse, but they certainly "got with the programme" while in Normandy.
scienceman47 02-06-06, 01:55 AM	I hate children. Half of you are insecure. There is no hierarchy, only ability to mesh with the situation. Nature breeds no weaklings. Nothing is more or less evolved than anything else, just conveniently adapted. If a creature is in all respects inferior, then there are more of them. There are roughly equal amounts of either gender. Or rather, there are more men generated at birth but they die quicker. Lets assume that both genders have equal stats, and these stats shall trade equally with each other. The tree sloth with the clown vampire avatar suggested +2 strength for men and -2 for women. To balance we will give men -2 to wisdom and women +2 to charisma. Men will always make inferior clerics and druids, and women will always make better bards and sorcerors. Wizards will be a better choice for women as strenght is a wizards less useful stat. Casters are the most powerful classes in the game. Logically in this version of DnD, women would rule all civilized nations simply by controlling magic. Adventuring parties would be made up of enteprising women seeking wealth with a packmule/meatshield along. Not long after that men would be posting on these very boards complaining about how their girlfriend keeps showing him up and how he's tired of it. I think gender ability adj are fun crushing. Allow me to play a game where my potential girlfriend could play a greataxe weilding valkyrie and where I can play the exotic sorceror who charms everyone he meets before bending the universe with presence alone. (This is way too serious for me, I'm gonna go and think up goofy ass golems on the monster board)
Xeviat-DM 02-06-06, 04:21 AM	I keep mentioning the absolute equality and history of equality in D&D, going back into prehistoric times and probably dating back to the creation of the human species in the setting. Nobody is particularly interested in rebutting it; all that turns up is "aww, well, it wouldn't have to be that way because I think an essential part of being male is the ability to manhandle a woman." All I have to say is "wow"; there is quite a bit of pent up agression behind your words. I don't know if you're a man or a woman, so I'm not going to assume either. All I'm going to say is that I never said anything about "ability to manhandle a woman" as part of being male, just that male humans generally have more physical strength than women. You can chalk that up to culture, diet, or drive, but I explain it with biology. I come from native american and scandinavian descent; my mother is 6' (scandinavian) and my father is 5'8" (native american). Before puberty, I was the shortest and thinnest kid in class, but shortly after 8th grade I put on several inches over the summer and a large number of pounds in muscle. I wasn't doing anything that the "average" kid wasn't; my only real physical activity was an hour of P.E. (including a mile jog each week). I ate the same bad fast food that everyone else did. Point is that testosterone, not any excessive exercise, did that for me. I don't think you can blame culture on my now 6'2" 220 lb. body, nor can you blame upbringing; my father was never around, so I didn't have what you would call a "male role model". Seems like biology to me. Oh, and by the way, male chimps and male gorillas are larger than the female's too. As far as I can recall, from my limited high school/discovery channel knowledge of the animal kingdom, most of the "higher" mammals have larger males. I can think of some rodents that have larger females. As an aside, I would assume my mother was/is stronger than my father, but I'm stronger than my mother. After a quick google search, here's some records. A quick note; I'm not familiar with the standards for weight lifting (records are given in snatch, "c&jerk", and total; I know both snatch and "c&jerk" are lifts, and the totals seem to almost be the two added together; if anyone can explain these, please do so): Men's world record: Weight category +105 kg; snatch 213 kg, c&jerk 263 kg, total 472 kg. Women's world record: Weight category +75 kg; snatch 137 kg, c&jerk 182 kg, total 305 kg. OH, and to compare similar poundages ... Mens' world record: Weight category 77 kg; snatch 173 kg, c&jerk 210 kg, total 377 kg. Oh, sure. That's why women's sports are low-impact versions of men's sports. (Even Tennis!) That's why women's sports in U.S. high schools have only been federally funded since 1972 (Nice one, Tricky Dick!) and why women's athletics programmes in U.S. Colleges still get less than a quarter of athletics money. That's why sportswomen are being evaluated on looks, not ability. Hmmm ... I would assume that world class women weight lifters would choose to give themselves the exact same kind of training as men; we're not talking about a sport with a whole lot of rules, we're talking about "lift that with correct form" here. Especially when we're considering a world competition where countries are trying to outdo each other. You know, I'm only going to mention one last thing, because your masked sexism (yes, you can be sexist against men) has seemed to have forgotten one thing: What happens to anyone, male or female, when they periodically take testosterone hormones (or "roids")? What happens to eunich men? What happens to men at old age when their testosterone levels drop off and their estrogine levels increase?
Derrick 02-06-06, 08:10 PM	All I have to say is "wow"; there is quite a bit of pent up agression behind your words. Pardon? There's nothing pent-up or aggressive about what I'm saying: it's explicitly angry at the assumptions being made here. When we're interested in what the world is like, it's important to consider how it came to be that way. In fact, your silly little "oh my!" here illustrates the general flaw in your reasoning quite well: you see that I'm angry, and don't even seem to have wondered what in this thread might have caused that. I don't know if you're a man or a woman, so I'm not going to assume either. All I'm going to say is that I never said anything about "ability to manhandle a woman" as part of being male, just that male humans generally have more physical strength than women. You can chalk that up to culture, diet, or drive, but I explain it with biology. You don't explain anything. All you've done is describe the circumstances in our world, and claim that the differences in our world are essential ones; one of those differences is that men tend to be stronger than women, and that is equivalent to men having the ability to manhandle women. Moreover, your characterisation of my argument as ignorant of biology is just slander. I've been talking about the differences in the origins of real world humans and the origins of D&D humans right through. Oh, and by the way, male chimps and male gorillas are larger than the female's too. As far as I can recall, from my limited high school/discovery channel knowledge of the animal kingdom, most of the "higher" mammals have larger males. I can think of some rodents that have larger females. For the obvious counter-example, there's plenty of whales (Humpbacks, Minke, Right) where the females are larger. However, your point is totally irrelevant unless you bother to look at the reason why this disparity exists, and how that might be changed in the D&D world. Hmmm ... I would assume that world class women weight lifters would choose to give themselves the exact same kind of training as men; we're not talking about a sport with a whole lot of rules, we're talking about "lift that with correct form" here. Especially when we're considering a world competition where countries are trying to outdo each other. I'm sorry, I missed the part of your argument where you provided figures to show that funding for men's and women's weightlifting was equal and that this was an ongoing historical trend. Probably deleted by accident or swallowed by a server error. Could you please re-post those figures? You know, I'm only going to mention one last thing, because your masked sexism (yes, you can be sexist against men) has seemed to have forgotten one thing: What happens to anyone, male or female, when they periodically take testosterone hormones (or "roids")? What happens to eunich men? What happens to men at old age when their testosterone levels drop off and their estrogine levels increase? Firstly: in what way am I being sexist? I'm telling you that your argument is fundamentally flawed because it's blind to history - let alone herstory. That does indicate a bias, and I'm prepared to bite that bullet: when engaged in arguments on human nature (and, indeed, a wide range of topics), I treat the ill-informed with less weight than the well-informed. Secondly, where are you even going with this? I'm happy to concede that I haven't brought up the cases you seem interested in, and I'll even admit that I have no idea how they fit into the picture. What point are you making by referring to persons that have taken anabolic-androgenic steroids, or eunuchs, or elderly males?
Talen Lee 02-06-06, 08:43 PM	His point, however obliquely delivered, is that testosterone has an affect on a person's physical development. Since I know at least one woman who has high testosterone levels, I can concur. However, I also concur that it's a stupid argument. Look, you guys (and I speak in the affable term there) are going about this wrong. Look, we've made it eminently clear that we, those who fight against this argument, don't like the idea of gender-biasing stats and gender-based stat adjustments in D&D. Okay, now, please, everyone, calm down and sit down. Surely a more useful and, perhaps, dare I say, less flameworthy approach is to let those who do want this change discuss it in a way that's civilized? If everyone who wants these changes makes their own house rules and have no sensible baseline to work with, then we're going to deal with people making dumb rulings. The boards could at least be an online resource of the collective thought of the community. Three pages deep, I think the community's lack of desire for these rulings in default D&D has been made eminently clear. Perhaps how it's an idea to let those who do have ideas on how to do this - and do it well - have their say, instead of just brawling with one another? I have said my piece on why the design decisions made thus far aren't good - but it's a little harder to critique an idea that you don't like. So, if you use the +1 str, -1 wisdom flicker on males... ... You raise the bar on male character's beatdown capacities. A free point of strength to many pure combat characters, in the vein of Fighters and Barbarians, is going to let them hit milestones faster. It lets characters 'game' point buys a little more viably when Strength is a secondary stat modifier for them. ... It pushes men away from roles where a high wisdom is desirable. This means that male members of the clergy would be rarer than females (even if females don't get an increase to Wisdom). ... It artifically makes male characters more weak-willed. So there's some simple extrapolation of the actual effects of these changes. And these are, to me, bad things, so I don't like them and they don't strike me as having appeal. Do they appeal to you, if you want gender based roles? Do you honestly prefer males being better combatants and worse druids? Now, if that's all true... sure. Go for it. But this is just not appealing to me, as a GM, or as a player.
scienceman47 02-07-06, 03:39 AM	Talen Lee is right. We have become very angry here, and nothing has been accomplished. Perhaps the solution lies in increasing things that are not normally considered when making stats. Someone suggested an increase to carrying capacity for males. So what would be the equivalent for females? I'll be back after even more golem madness.
The Great Alchemist 02-07-06, 03:56 AM	I think Talen Lee really hit on something about increasing the Strength of men. If you do indeed increase the Strength of men and then balance it with a penalty to some other stat or a bonus to women (probably Wisdom or Charisma would be most accurate) then you effectively turn men into half orcs. Well, the men wouldn't be as gimped as half-orcs but they would share a major problem with them. Men would be the best at hand to hand, unfortunately with a lower Charisma or Wisdom than women, it means that women would be better at any career that didn't involve raw Strength. Women would be the best druids, the best cleircs, the best wizards, sorcerers, and bards, etc. Why would anybody want to play a male magic user when they could play a female one with a higher magic attribute? Along the same lines, why would you want to play a female fighter when a male version of the same character will always be stronger? The answer is obvious - role playing. But, since role playing already suffers in the face of min-maxing, it seems a shame to punish somebody for the character concept they want to play (such as a muscle bound female barbarian or a weakling male with high charisma and wisdom) Personally, the way I emphasize the differences between men is women is when there is a truely strong women who excells in hand to hand combat, I have NPCs be surprised at her strength and combat ability. Thereby showing real world sex differences exist in game but not punishing a player for the character's concept.
Talen Lee 02-07-06, 03:58 AM	A bonus to spot and listen rolls? I'm not entirely sure what people think the 'equivalence' between the two genders is. Indeed, to hear tell, the statistics only report that men should get a +1 to strength and women get jack.
beat_takeshi 02-07-06, 05:24 AM	I think the simplest solution would be to have stat boosts in the classes. If your character is a very macho man, then thats probably because he's a fighter, hence a class stat boost (to strength, dex or con at choice) would solve that problem. Similarly if your female character is very strong, chances are shes a fighter. If your character is very strong and a wizard, well your not doing yourself any favours. All classes benifit from various different stats. Without doing any research, I'm sure most peoples ideas about what the relative sexes are good at would be reflected in what sex they choose what class character of theres to be (with a big skew toward characters of their own sex of course). Possibley this could limit the flexibility of the classes though...
Talen Lee 02-07-06, 05:26 AM	Well, the thing is, that idea is already covered. People who play fighters give them high strengths, people who play wizards give them high intelligences. That's just the nature of the game. Doling out stat bonuses because you choose a class that likes that stat is just giving more power for nothing, and that's not a bright thing to do in such a large amount.
Hodo 02-07-06, 10:57 AM	Perhaps a variant of the aging rules (does anyone even use those)?
scienceman47 02-07-06, 09:27 PM	Perhaps the people who want a ability adjustments want a world that feels more realistic. I prefer the equality in DnD. If you need your world to better reflect the world you live in for the purposes of your inferior ability to suspend reality, I recommend a change in class spread. Decide what percentage of adventurers of both genders will be what class. For instance, barbarians will probably have a greater amount of men than women. Bards will favor the ladies. Second, alter how each gender's NPCs will fight. The barbarian women may favor bows over axes. Bard males may decide to weild swords over song and magic. Third, if you character is playing a class thats abnormal for their gender, show it in your roleplaying. Have your tavernkeepers give smirks or scorn to barbarian women, and ask if the player is fruity if they play the male bard. Following these simple steps, you too can produce a game sapped of some of its fantasy and uncomfortable to players unwilling to play thier gender role. But you wang wont shrivel from emasculation.