I'm sure plenty of you have seen that argument that DLfan and I had in the Drow Thread, and my declaration of tactical loss (I did not concede the argument, but made a tactical decision to not continue it). My main issue with his argument was this: there are somethings that I don't want in my fantasy worlds, and biology based sexism is one of them (whether it be mechanical or fluffwise). If things like that do exist, I want it to be noted as something out of the norm.
Stuff like this can make or break many game groups - plenty of female players can end up being driven away by such attitudes being held at the game table, or put into the campaign world. Sometimes, the DM or designer is not at fault, sometimes they are.
The idea here is to not have a massive argument, but to bypass the argument entirely. If a player is so completly wedded to the idea of biology based sexism that they leave your game over it not being present, rejoice at losing a misogynistic player (well, that's what I would do...)
The Issue
Biology based sexism is based in real world biological fact: the primary thing being that men have a biological tendency towards being stronger than women, based on one advantage: Testosterone.
Testosterone is commonly known as the primary male sex hormone (hormones that deal with male sexual characteristics are called Androgens), but it is also an Anabolic Steroid. Anabolic Steroids increase the gain of muscle mass, its repair, the amount of effort required to produce a given amount of force, bone density, and body growth. Most Anabolic Steroids also have Androgenic effects.
This means that, despite male and female muscles producing the same amount of force on a weight for weight basis, women have to work harder to gain and maintain muscle mass.
The Solution
We begin with one basic fact: This is a fantasy game, with fantasy worlds. As such, we do not have to follow the facts of the real world, except where they are required for immersion into gameplay; where we can closely model real world (physics), loosely model the real world (Falling damage, armor), or not even try (non-human races, magic).
So what is the solution? We remove the Anabolic Steroid effects from Testosterone (and the Androgenic effects from Anabolic Steroids), and give them to a new hormone which we'll call the Strength Hormone for now.
So we have this new hormone that's an Anabolic Steroid, and the other Anabolic Steroids no longer make someone look more male. You guessed it - we make sure that these hormones are not linked to biological sex; which means that men and women in this fantasy world have the exact same capability for strength, and are only differentiated by sexual characteristics.
"But I Don't Want Bearded Ladies!"Body hair is an Androgenic effect - it is not effected at all by our new Strength hormone.
So Now What?
Men and women are now biologically equal in terms of capacity for strength and endurance. And we can play around with the new Strength Hormone as well, by noting quirks in its processing or exceptions to it not being linked to sex. For example, you can say that Dwarves have a quirk where processing the Strength Hormone causes increased growth in body hair (Dwarf 1: "Look at the beard on the lass that walked in. So lusterous and thick..." Dwarf 2: "She looks like she can mine for hours..." Dwarf 1: "Steady me lad, I'm going in... After another round."). Elves can process it wierdly, having more of an effect on their magical capability than their strength. Drow can be an exception to the rule, where women produce slightly more of the hormone than men do, a gift from Lolth to show who she prefers to rule her people.
Option 2: A Wizard Did It
In all seriousness, it's usually not an issue in high fantasy campaigns. If a thirty ton lizard flying doesn't break your suspension if disbelief, you really don't have much ground to stand on as far as biological sexism is concerned. In most fantasy games, it's a non-issue.
Of course, if you're running a grittier setting it might come up. The solution here is to just realize that player characters are unique in the world. They may be noticed for it, after all Brienne of Tarth catches flack wherever she goes for being so uncommonly big. If you're playing and 18 STR female character in a gritty fantasy realm, people might notice how broad her shoulders are or how powerful her legs look. In say, Ravenloft this approach might make sense.
JonWake wrote:
Do what you want, it's D&D. If you don't want sexism, don't use it.
What? Is a avid forumer going to come to your house and force you? lol
Do you have a problem with me suggesting this piece of optional fluff? Do you have a problem with it being distributed via the forums?
Do you think that a feminist is going to go over to your house and force you to use it?
Heh. I actually have more of an issue with 18 STR Elves 
JonWake wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
emwasick wrote:
iserith wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
"In Monopoly, players start with $1500 cash. Because Mr. Immersion wants Monopoly to be realistic and model the real world, and since females make less money than men, we'll start all female players with $1155.
But that's not fair, so let's create a reason to give female players another $345 with a realistic explanation for it that Mr. Immersion might accept - we'll say it's money they got from their husbands or boyfriends."
If that sounds ridiculous, it's because the real answer is to tell Mr. Immersion that his playstyle and mindset are not supported in the game of Monopoly and he should take a hike and find a game that does.
iserith wrote:
I'm not safe to be around regardless of gender. Let's settle with a virtual high five. *high five*
*high five!*
RustedKitsune wrote:
akaddk wrote:
iserith wrote:
emwasick wrote:
I quite like a bit of sexism in the game. It's not a requirement but we've always played along similar lines to GoT - general society is sexist but PCs buck that trend, with spell-casting being a good way for a woman to achieve power in society. It gives female PCs benefits and drawbacks that can be fun. As far as 'biology-based sexism', it's never really come up.
That said, I'll be glad if, as promised the time of ample cleavage and chain mail bikinis is past in the artwork. I would like women depicted in practical clothing not be one step away from playboy.
pauln6 wrote:
emwasick wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
akaddk wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
I've often thought that female wizards ought to be allowed to keep concentration going on six spells at the same time. But I don't know how to balance that.
RustedKitsune wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
Sexism might not be the word I would use. Either way basing stats on gender has been out of the game since the '90s and ain't coming back in today's world. Someone with an 18 strength regardless of gender would stand out if not hidden by heavy clothing, they are strong like Olympic weight lifter strong arms and legs thick as can be. Because strength is connected to carrying ability it cannot be all how well you use what you got. Some portion has to be how much you got, I tend to think at the upper levels it shows. Of course your game do what you like with it, you want to discribe a not nearly 5 foot human weighing in just below 100 pounds then say they have a natural 18 strength no one will stop you.
Rottle wrote:
I've never seen this actually become an issue at my gaming table, and I used to play a lot of 1e AD&D.
Being a male nurse, the majority of my friends from work are female, thus I game with a lot of women, and I have yet to find one who wants to play a character with a seriously high Strength score.
It seems like that sort of thing just doesn't fit with their fantasy self-image--being super-strong just doesn't feel feminine enough to appeal to them. Think about it--the image they are fed of combat-effective female characters in modern fantasy fiction is mostly Dexterity-based. Just now, archery is very popular among my crowd of female players, since they're all huge Hunger Games fans.
As a point of curiosity, every time this issue comes up over on the RPG.net discussion forums, it always seems to me like their population of trans-women are the ones who feel the most strongly on this issue and have the most to say about it.
RustedKitsune wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
I think the mechanics of the game do a pretty good job of remaining impartial. No preference is given one way or another: everyone has access to the same stats. Any issues of sexism at this point lay with the players instead of the game as far as the mechanics are concerned—generic cleavage art and setting assumptions based on gender are outside the scope of the rules.
In short, I don't think a ruleset can cure someone's case of being an ignorant jerk. The solution is almost always to just not play with these jerks in the first place.
While I agree with you in the core point, sexism has no place at the game table, I take issue with a number of your posts. Before I get into that though, I will share my thoughts on the main topic:
You specifically brought up biology based sexism. In a game system like D&D, I think there should be no mechanical difference between male and female characters. While there are real world differences in humans, I know plenty of women who can lift more than many men I know (STR). As you mentioned, women (generally) have to work harder, but can still achieve high strength. I also know short men, tall women, bulky women, slim men. Body types vary widely, and even secondary sexual characteristics, while generally confined to one sex, can be seen in individuals of the other. My point is that there is enough variety within each sex to support identical mechanics for both.
Due to this, I see no need for a fluff change. If someone is looking to do one though, I think your "different hormone" solution is a good one. I also like the idea you presented that it is present in all the races, and acts differently within them. I know you mentioned that in your setting anyone can become an adventurer, but I also see the application of this hormone in "heroes blood." Perhaps an increased amount is what allows certain individuals to stand out from the populace and leads them to become adventurers.
I think you should edit your original post though. Rather than start by mentioning an argurment in another thread, make it clear that your intent is to put out a fluff suggestion to eliminate biology based sexism from a setting.
RustedKitsune wrote:
VTS wrote:
I'm not good at diplomacy, or interaction.
The reason for the introduction was to give background on why I was making the post, and what inspired me to do it. It's something I do, but I should probably do my best to get better at it.
I, personally, felt like Jenks post was attacking my decision to post this.
My problems with men comes from anxiety, and some other issues that I don't feel comfortable discussing in public (I will however, mention that I was raised by a misogynist, whose attitudes taught me that I should assume that all men will attack me over something).
Yeah, I wrote the scenario - with the intent of introducing that aspect of misogyny. I should be clearer about this stuff.
As for Akaddk... I tend towards using humor to try and diffuse male rage over my being offended at their "jokes", because yes, I have had to deal with that.
I know, I know - Not All Men, as the MRAs say.
But there's far too many men who are like that for me to feel fully safe and sound in anything I do that doesn't explicitly ban men. And even then men will attack the activity because it bans men, unless it is so uber-girly that they fear their genitals will fall off.
I feel like I'm missing something here...
What in this game prompted your concerns here? There is absolutely nothing in this game that is tied to sex, except some random tables around height and weight. Is this purely a concern about the sexual dimorphism in the setting your game takes place in?
It just sounds like you have a real crusade here, and while I want to support you, I'm really not sure what you're fighting AGAINST?
Razorstorm wrote:
VTS wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
It's an interesting speculative premise, but it certainly requires a lot of campaign rebuilding. It changes almost every funddamental assumption about the pseudo-medieval base most D&D worlds build from.
How are courtship rituals changed? How is child rearing changed? How do lines of succession work? How is the economy changed with twice as much muscle labour? How did the original Hunter/Gatherer dynamic change? How does warfare change when the concept of "civillian" changes to no longer include women and children. WHO GETS THE LIFEBOATS FIRST?
Daunting. Good on you if you can make it work though.
DemoMonkey wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
akaddk wrote:
emwasick wrote:
akaddk wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
Shedeo wrote:
JonWake wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
SirBobington wrote:
This thread was started, I feel, in good faith with an individual putting out an idea to a community of people sharing a love of roleplaying. It's really sad when most of the responses aren't "eh, not for me" but rather "I don't see why you feel the need to do this," with the unspoken but no less apparent silent message of "It's ridiculous that you posted this, and I feel the need to let you know, in a civil manner, of course."
Even worse than this are the posts that are deliberately making sexist jokes. It's not even a question that the original poster has serious issues with sexism in her own life (she has literally stated some of these, and let on that there were more she doesn't wish to discuss). It's appaling that the sexist comments continue to flow in - especially from someone claiming to work the the LGTB. There should be some deep-felt shame here. How would the LGTB crowd feel if they knew the person they confided in was posting these comments? Or how about the the instituion supposedly providing support for the LGTB community; how would the employer feel if they knew their employee was spouting this trash - even in a "joking" manner?
Here's an ettiquette tip conducive to a healthy forum: if you feel that something posted in good faith doesn't agree with your tastes, let it alone and don't spoil the topic for those interested in it.
Another tip: If you feel that it is not posted in good faith then ignore it; you'll be doing the community a favor by sending the troll to find food elsewere.
If anyone here was perfectly happy watching the slight-of-build Callisto (pre godhood) kicking the ass of 220lb warlords in Xena, then they really shouldn't have a problem with the realism of physical stats and the male/female issue in this regard.
For those that might want to model it nevertheless, you really should take that logic further and change such things as the grapple rules, so 900 lb knotted-muscled trolls cannot be slam-dunked by 180lb Monks and so that 5mm thick plate armour on a PC Fighter cannot somehow deflect a 12 ft long 200lb storm giants axe wielded with the force necessary to chop a car clean in half...
... YES in the real world there are palpable differences, but seriously, is anyone modelling women's better multitasking capabilities, colour perception, physical flexibility or pain tolerance?
No - of course they aren't - because the game couldn't model it, and too many people wouldn't bother.
So being craftily or unconsciously selective about it... "men have higher STR" for instance, is as bias as all hell, and doesn't actually reflect a world in which a Rogue with a 6 inch knife can penetrate the 7 inch thick hide of a dragon despite the necessary breaking of the principles of basic physics... and yet they still manage to crit on a sneak attack for more damage than a Knight's 6ft Lance from the back of a charging warhorse!
The fact of the matter is, if you have a desire to 'correct' female PC physical stats to reflect the 'real world' without doing it for everything else, then you are bias.
Get over it... and move on...
Oulak wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
I haven't heard of this 'Biology based sexism' before?
I don't understand how it works - the strength increase from testosterone is marginal - to the point of being fairly pointless.
Any player at your table who thinks a wee smidge of extra upper body strength somehow makes men superior to women (in some sort of general sense) is still going to hold that sort of baseless attitude even if you put in this mutual strength thing. Because like most baseless attitudes, the less evidence for it the more feverently they hold onto the belief.
I think the hard question is do you think the (in my opinion, fairly minor) strength advantage actually matters? Because sexism does not stem from biological facts. Unless you feel the fact compels you to believe the sexism. You have Lolth affirm the strength stereotype, after all. As I said, a hard question.
In my opinion the 'advantage' men have is psychosis. To be mad, both to frighten and mad enough that they forget their own mortality, which makes them even more frightening when they threaten but act as if they can't die (further fear inducing if you are morally disinclined to kill them (the only really sure way to stop someone who acts as if they can't die) OR some sort of government structure is likely to jail you for doing so. Possibly a patriarchal government structure, by hap chance?). As evidence towards general insanity I'd point towards the much larger number of male inmates in prisons that women inmates. Women are generally more sane - which makes them evaluate their own mortality more rationally, which makes them (atleast at first) more vulnerable to the madman who forgets his mortality.
I like to think this helps give an inside view of the madmans thinking, that'll help the rational thinker to form work arounds for the madness rather than let it get its fearful way. Or maybe it's a load of rubbish, who knows? But I like to think it could help and even if it doesn't, the good intent was there.
RustedKitsune wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Oulak wrote:
Interesting thread. Personally, I and my players wouldn't require a "strength hormone" justification for high STR females. As a DM, if I say that such and such a female NPC has 18 STR, and she adventures while her husband looks after the house and the children, then that's what's happening, darn it!
In my world, important NPCs are whatever gender I feel suits them best, and it is assumed that there are a roughly even number of male and female adventurers of every class. There are females in every profession and at every social standing in society, and nobody in the campaign world bats an eye if they see a female priest, or soldier, or mayor, or whatever else.
One area where I'll admit I've been a bit biased is in the gender distribution of mooks. I think every humanoid enemy my party has fought so far aside from named enemies (so all the generic goblins, orcs, humans, etc) has been male. This is partially a convenience thing, as I find pictures online and print them out to make tokens the players can quickly identify when looking at a grid, and it's a lot easier to find one portrait and copy/paste it 6 times to make the 6 orcs the party is going to be fighting than finding similar looking male and female versions and copy/pasting 3 of each. Also, if you go on google or deviantart and search "orc bandit" I guarantee the vast majority of the images returned will be of males, and most of the females will be cheesecake artwork. Sigh.
Still, I think in the future I'll make the effort to have some of my nameless goons be females.
WhiteHarness wrote:
WhiteHarness wrote:
On a side note, mythbusters ran a test on women who hadn't given birth and who had given birth - the latter seemed to be able to withstand pain for longer (they were using the 'hand in icewater' method).
This may well explain variations in studies. Got to pin down all variables, yo!