So /tg/, this is a topic that always ends in shitposting and arguments, and the threads are usually bait, but I honestly want to have a little discussion about what mechanical and mostly-fair differences you can give male and female adventurers.
>Simple method
Males get bonus to strength and/or females get negatives to strength and bonus to charisma
While lazy, I feel this method is balanced enough.
>Fedora method
>Women have negatives in all stats but charisma
>Implying this isn't b8
Let's think of some new advantages and disadvantages for females without going into the magical aspect too much.
>Female Disadvantages
Shorter, weaker by a large margin, lower sprinting speed.
>Female advantages
Smaller means using less food, better color vision, smaller target.
Magical advantages can go all over the place, but personally I like the old 'women grow life inside of them so they should be resistant to save or die/negative energy style attacks' personally. What about yourself? What stat modifiers would you give the genders, if any?
Women getting bonuses to charisma doesn't make any sense whatsoever. What is that based on?
>wimenz arr purdy tho
>>44186215
it does though. Men don't give a shit about you. Men do give a shit about women.
All told, the sexual dimorphism in humans isn't as extreme as it is in some other species.
Any kind of sexual dimorphism system in a game, assuming it's balanced, will effectively turn race selection into race->subrace selection. And when you're there, why stop at +4 STR? Why not give completely unique abilities to female in return for losing STR? Maybe they are the only ones who can cast healing magic for whatever reason makes sense. Maybe female orcs are more powerful than male orcs because females need to protect the young and the males don't stick around typically. And if you're going for that kind of stuff, then why just stop at male/female? Why not have some unique race that has a third sex that never breeds? Or maybe have a race that doesn't even reproduce sexually but differentiates into one of several morphs where each morph has its own bonuses and maluses?
I feel that male/female distinction in traditional humanoid races is pedantic and uninteresting. It doesn't add anything. Yeah, you can have your male and female subraces, but to what end? You'd probably see less male bards and thieves and more male fighters and barbarians. If you think that makes your game better, fine, go for it.
Actually now that I think about it, even in my homebrew races that were not simply split down male/female, the gender distinction ended up being cosmetic rather than mechanical.
completely irrelevant unless you're aiming for absolute adherence to realism
>making a stupid b8 thread
>>44186248
I don't think it's bait, there's too much thought put into the OP.
I do think it's stupid though. The concept at heart is interesting but all you're doing is giving men a bonus? Wow nice job, your game will be so much better. If you're going to make gender distinctions, why not make them actually interesting and meaningful instead of whatever it is that it typically is assumed to be.
>>44185985
Even if I could come up with differences that wern't pants-on-head retarded, I'd rather not give the grognards in my group any further reasons they can use to "legitimize" playing female characters every single game. They already play up the Drow and "MUH FEMALE-DOMINATED SOCIETY" enough as it is, while I'm the only one ever playing a male character ever.Someday I'll find an online group that isn't shit and Magical Realm.
>>44185985
>What stat modifiers would you give the genders, if any?
Unless you're deliberately looking to piss some people off, or you're trying to make a super-realistic game that literally fucking nobody will ever bother to play because it's too fucking complicated, the differences between men and women are not great enough to warrant differing stats.
If you can't just roll up a character and play the game without whining about how "OMG, IN THE REAL WORLD GIRLS ARE WEAKER!", then you can fuck right the hell off. Nobody wants you in their game.
I wouldn't play in a system with rules like this unless the system was otherwise immaculate.
I would definitely much prefer a system built around a metagame instead of realism. Think fallout's "Black Widow" and "Ladykiller" perks. They both provide the same bonus, but depending on what situation you're in, one becomes better than the other. Feats or perks that mirror eachother like "Caregiver/Provider" or "One of the Girls/One of the Guys" which could provide bonuses when interacting with your own gender. Then, you can create balance by creating balance in the genders you incorporate in the story. I'd at least be open to this idea, at least.
>>44185985
>What about yourself? What stat modifiers would you give the genders, if any?
I don't give any different stat modifiers myself. I like to keep the game simple and different stats for genders just bogs the game down needlessly.
Especially since I don't play simulationist games: I prefer fantasy myself and I can argue that PCs are stronger than the norm. And also.. magic: don't have to explain anything man.
That's my take on this.
Men get +2 Con, -2 Dex. Women get +2 Cha, -2 Str.
>>44185985
While obvious, there should be some kind of penalty while menstruating I believe. While having not gone through it (thanks penis), most references to it I've seen have depicted it as incredibly distracting/annoying/painful so it stands to reason it would disrupt adventuring or soldiering.
>>44186337
Pretty much this. It sounds lame and almost social-justice'y to say that both genders need to be equal... but it's a fantasy game, nobody cares about realism. Besides, if you make anything except similar/situational modifiers, you get a situation like >>44186264 where people meta-game their character's gender as if it were just another stat to be weighed against it's alternative. One would be declared better than the other and used exclusively, and that's boring.
>>44186382
Yeah... cos that sounds fun to RP. Lets describe our bowel movements while we're at it.
I completely agree with >>44186237 ; making a player choose the sex of its character for gameplay reasons instead of roleplaying ones offers nothing. Nothing prevents you from making a high Cha low Str woman character (unless you use random stat generation, but in that case it's your loss)
Women tend to be less affected by diseases than men, by the way, but that's a bit too restricted to warrant a Constitution bonus.
>>44186235
>Men do give a shit about women.What are you, gay?Anyways, that still excludes women, infants, non-human races and animals, that wouldn't be affected (also, males from non-standard societies in some cases). So it should be a situational bonus and not a flat stat increase. Not to mention that I don't see why women would be better at intimidation than men (if we use d&d) just because of sexual attraction.
>>44186237
if you're not gonna do this, you shouldn't do anything at all. as stated eloquently, sexual dimorphism isn't really much of a thing in the human species. it gets even fuzzier when you factor in that -- in most systems -- pcs are meant to be exceptional, more notable than your average person. that's behind rolling 4d6 drop lowest in a system where ten is the average; you're expected to be above average in nearly every respect. obviously there are exceptions, games centered around everyman sort of characters like coc, but broadly speaking, pcs are pcs because they're exceptional. if they're already exceptional, even if you *do* make the somewhat purile argument that "menz are stronk and ladeez are <insert whatever>" it can easily be explained away by, yeah, but *my* character isn't that thing. she/he's an *adventurer*
better just to leave it out and save yourself a bunch of really tedious arguments from anti-sjws and reasonable humans alike
>>44186413
>not pissing into the ashes of last nights campfire while wolf-whistling that cute elf ranger with the long ears.
In a homebrew I was makingwas making the males have the ability to push strength one point higher while females could push agility one point higher but they could only do so at level 10+.
>>44186436
The 'intimidate is a charisma skill?' issue is a long standing issue that is completely unrelated.
Also it doesn't exclude women or infants, seeing as how infants are more drawn to women and women are more drawn to women.
Seriously, look at human society. Men are looked at as disposable objects. Women are looked at as precious objects.
Not even trying to be fedora here, it's simple math.
People take care of incubators. It's how we're hard-wired. Even orcs will take women alive to produce half-breeds. Elves and dwarves would take care of them.
The only situation where the charisma boost would probably go out the window is like, lizardfolk. And honestly, who gives a fuck about those reptilian shitheads. No one is gonna try to seduce them anyway. And I'm sure they'd be much more receptive to a more feminine voice and body anyway just based on vocal shit. Again, we're talking averages here.
Women get a charisma boost. (if men get a strength boost)
>>44186320
Unless you're actually playing a simulationist real world game, in which case sexual dimorphism will be the least of your worries.
>mfw making injuries & diseases tables that seem to never end
>literally ao many ways to die
>so many situational modifiers
>>44186237
>Sexual dimorphism isn't really a thing
>Men are far stronger than women and taller to boot outside of some really shitty DNA rolls.
>>44186582
>outside of
manlets aren't humans
Women are weaker, have smaller brains and are emotionally unstable. Having higher charisma is mostly an Anglo standard, most other cultures treat women either indifferently or as brood mares. Actually statting the genders differently would be completely unfair, and destroy what little chance the neckbeards have of getting laid.
>>44186502
>Also it doesn't exclude women or infants, seeing as how infants are more drawn to women and women are more drawn to women.
As a male specialized educator, I can guarantee you this is 100% bullshit and completely depends on both persons and the particular issue.
The protection issue is real, but that's damn situational. Do you think Erik the viking jarl or Yi the joseon dynasty aristocrat will value the opinion of a foreign woman even in the slightest ? I could also mention Vercingetorix that expelled the women out of Alesia (they all died) because he didn't have enough food to feed both them and his warriors.
Back to the point, Agi would probably be the best stat to upgrade for females, and the less prone to make the game degenerate into endless argument.
>>44186592
>100% bullshit and completely depends on both persons and the particular issue.
EHHHH.
Its about 70% bullshit and definitely depends on THE INDIVIDUAL person, but we're talking about averages. But so is the same bullshit with strength. Yeah, on average a human male is stronger than a human female.
>The protection issue is real, but that's damn situational.
Not really, every race generally does it.
>Do you think Erik the viking jarl or Yi the joseon dynasty aristocrat will value the opinion of a foreign woman even in the slightest ? I could also mention Vercingetorix that expelled the women out of Alesia (they all died) because he didn't have enough food to feed both them and his warriors.
I don't know if these are real examples from the real world, but if you don't think I could cherrypick 100 more about how men are treated worse than women in some random historical situation, then you're crazy.
>>44186591
there is no strong evidence to support the claim that women are emotionally unstable. for every study that claims there are, there's one that says they aren't.
and your brain is smaller than an elephant's, are you dumber than an elephant?
>>44186727
oh god i already regret posting this
I don't really see why man and woman should have different stat modifiers, especially if Elfs, Orks and Dragons exist. If a +2 Bonus would already mean that you are of an different species. Giving a +2 Dex to all human woman would mean they are all like Elf or something and all man are like halforks for getting +2 Str. I don't really see how doing this would improve anything or would make much sens anyway (especial if it is a Fantasy setting with different Races).
>>44186582
When you consider what the racial stat modifiers are sexual dimorphism really isn't a thing, not on the scale of stats anyway.
>>44186625
>only 70%bullshit
That's not a way to defend your point of view, anon ! Anyways I contest the averages you present based on my personnal experience of dealing with hundreds of children and young adults, and I don't think I have a 18+ charisma score that justify them going to me (or my male colleagues) instead of the female educators.
But we're getting out of track here.
My point is : Charisma is a stat.
Men being treated worse than women (debatable in a large number of cultures IRL, and I don't see how you intend to demonstrate that "every race does it" in fictionnal settings) is a cultural trait.
(and yes, those were real examples)
The definition of Charisma in d&d is as follow :
>Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting.
How many of those traits are traditionally associated with feminity and/or sheltered upbringing (since you seem to associate that last element with females) ? How many are associated with manliness ? Looks pretty gender-neutral to me.
Also notice the last element, stats are not related to social relationships at all.
>>44186816
>personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness.
The problem is, all of these are completely culturally dependant.
Your personality might pan out horribly in a different culture.
You might not be persuasive at all to another culture.
Another culture might have completely different standards of beauty.
In fact, Charisma being a stat at all is absolutely stupid if we're really going to start "situational" around.
There is no catch-all, charismatic to every single society thing. Its not some generic thing you can master, like strength or dexterity.
But if it is, well, then women should have more of it.
Because they do.
On average.
>>44186547
>Unless you're actually playing a simulationist real world game, in which case sexual dimorphism will be the least of your worries.
Like I said, "...or you're trying to make a super-realistic game that literally fucking nobody will ever bother to play because it's too fucking complicated..."
>>44185985
Charisma represents, in large part, leadership, and I don't see women having the advantage there. Julius Caesar was a charismatic leader not because he was pretty. Now, women tend to be more socially nuanced, but D&D tends to put the ability to read people under wisdom rather than charisma. In terms of the charisma stat, I'd say it's a wash, with neither gender having the advantage overall.
I personally like the idea of female PCs having a small (1 point) advantage in dexterity to compensate for a similarly small disadvantage in strength. The issue of how women as a whole measure up to men as a whole is not important here. Hell, even how male and female adventurers stack up is beside the point. We're comparing only PCs, which do not have to be representative of any larger population. PCs are balanced, getting the same attribute scores (or at least using the same method for generating those scores) for meta-reasons.
So maybe female PCs are bigger badasses relative to the rest of their gender than male PCs are relative to theirs (top 1% compared to top 5%, or whatever). Whatever. It doesn't matter. My thinking is just that for a given level of ass-kicking, a woman is probably not going to have the same proportion of strength to dexterity as a man.
>>44186502
And this is why our society has long been lead by women, and only recently have men been able to hold important positions in government and industry.
>>44186796
It's enough that there would be a -1 to strength.
>>44186733
You should considering you are trying to compare human brains to elephant brains.
If you haven't realized, human males and females belong to the same species and their brains have more or less the same "architecture". The elephants' however doesn't share it's "architecture" with human brains.
If you assume that a) men and women have the same cognitive potential on average and b) women have less cerebral volume then you can infer that c) women's brains are more efficient than men's
Which would mean women actually function on a different architecture than men, which makes no sense. Plus it would mean women who grow to be man-sized would be smarter than men, and considering there aren't many 6'3 genius amazons (stop it boner) I'd consider that unlikely.
Plus this all could help explain why men tend to fluctuate more in terms of intelligence.
>>44186912
i think you're forgetting the world was run by strength. And if you look at any civilian populace where the need for 'strength' has been removed, you see it run by intelligence. (you also see feminism and better treatment of women)
Males: +4 str
Females: childbirth ability
There you go.
Men get +5 to all attacks they make with their claws. Women have night vision and start with a length of rope.
The difference in human gender is not interesting enough to have to enforce.statistic changes. A +1 here or -1 here for the sake of very general 'realistic' differences is not exciting or worth paying attention to.
Besides, PCs are already outliers and protagonists. Why should someone be forced to be less effective if they want to play a female fighter? If they want that not-as-strong-as-males female meleer they can just not put strength as their highest stat, but if they want to play some crazy amazoness why make it harder for them?
What? Oh, sorry, I wasn't apying attention to you while killing this gigantic dragon with a sword. Sure, let's go for verisimilitude and realism.
>>44186927
Feminism is a byproduct of socialism and the decay of hard social hierarchies, which in place are a product of force equalizers (guns, industrialization), but the same can be said of other movements that try to put disadvantaged (sometimes not really) groups in power, it does not mean these groups are good at leading. Feminism does not manage to fix the fact fewer women go into STEM or politics, it also doesn't manage to actually lead on any new policies as most of feminist theorics and most feminist policies are just expansion on male progressivist ideals.
>>44186945
I'm glad you agree. Fighters now have -5 in all stats, because I don't think anyone should be able to kill a dragon with a sword, realistically.
>>44186952
Good start, but what about dying randomly of dysentery? There's far too little of that, while adventurers should realistically suffer from shitting themselves to death all the time.
>>44186951
>Feminism is a byproduct of socialism and the decay of hard social hierarchies, which in place are a product of force equalizers (guns, industrialization), but the same can be said of other movements that try to put disadvantaged (sometimes not really) groups in power, it does not mean these groups are good at leading. Feminism does not manage to fix the fact fewer women go into STEM or politics, it also doesn't manage to actually lead on any new policies as most of feminist theorics and most feminist policies are just expansion on male progressivist ideals
A large majority of millenial Americans would describe themselves as feminists.
And I'm sure a large portion of milennials in Europe would too.
And these are generally the most powerful countries in the world
So . . . let's see, winning the hearts and minds? Check. Charisma. That's good at leading if I were to wager a guess.
>>44186215
>What is that based on?
Male disposability. Just one example of it is the treatment of women in the justice system, regardless of the gender of the judge.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html
Then there's also the fact that women are proven to be better liars.
Given women penalties in all stats except charisma, where they get a significant bonus, makes sense.
Does this severely disadvantage women, to the point where they might as well just not be PCs? Yes. But look at our equivalents of PCs: from policemen to firefighters to exterminators to sewage workers, these professions are dominated by men for a reason. On the one hand because they require strength, skill or discipline women simply do not have and on the other hand because they're dirty, dangerous and ungrateful jobs women don't want (except the military for some reason, I guess because it's "cool").
>>44186935
>Men get +5 to all attacks they make with their claws. Women have night vision and start with a length of rope.
This makes literally no sense. Men should get at least +7 to attacks, and women should start with a ball of yarn instead of a length of rope.
>>44186969
That's because they use the exact same tactics as any other populist group. Cheap promises and villainization.
If you aren't a feminist you are literally a misogynist rapist, so obviously your only choice is to be a feminist. Even if feminism is a very loosely defined ideology that can range from "I like equality" to "I hate men" to "I actually hate women(no seriously, college feminism is one helluva drug)"
>>44186975
>But look at our equivalents of PCs: from policemen to firefighters to exterminators to sewage workers
These are indeed just like all PCs ever, who can be anything from timid noncombatants to wise researchers to cunning plotters to mighty warriors who slay monsters to whatever else the main character in an rpg might be.
>>44186960
only dysentery? I make sure to keep track of the orange level of my players.
Usually their teeth fall out before I tell them about the scurvy.
>>44186960
Also Dragons suffer Dmg all the time because they are to big and start to suffocate like whales, realistically.
>>44186994
Change populist group to "political ideology" or just "politician"
>>44186994
>That's because they use the exact same tactics as any other populist group. Cheap promises and villainization.
And that's charisma in it's purest form.
Using some sort of logic would be intelligence or wisdom.
>>44186951
>>44186969
Between these two posts I'd say that women are good at influencing people, which is not the same as effective leadership. This is why they tend to ruin everything they get involved in: charisma does not imply competence.
Effective leadership would be a combination of charisma (winning hearts and minds), intelligence (analytical reasoning) and wisdom (coup d'œil militaire).
>>44187009
Hahahah holy shit ok you win anon, well fucking played.
That said, socialism does it even better, even if it is still a dirty word for a few of the oldee generation.
>>44187000
That's a good decision. I also keep their stats hidden, since realistically they shouldn't know their own stats. I just vaguely hint at their capabilities, and laugh when they overestimate themselves. Just like real life!
Sometimes, I decide one of the characters is delusional and lie about his vague capabilities. They get really angry when I reveal that their wizard is actually just a crazy man who can't actually do anything at all. Just like real life!
>>44186969
http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/04/09/82-percent-of-americans-dont-consider-themselves-feminists-poll-shows/
>18%
>majority
Try again.
>>44186995
>who can be anything from timid noncombatants
That makes a very boring PC, to the point where they're more suited as NPCs. There's a reason why D&D has tried to soup up Clerics since forever.
>to wise researchers
And despite the fact that the male percentage of high school graduates is decreasing, STEM is still domianted by men. In spite of numerous government-financed efforts to get more women involved. What does that tell us about wise researchers?
>cunning plotters
Aight, you got me there.
So what's the actual science on this shit?
Like I get it Menz Be Stronk but how exactly does it work? Are they born stronger already or does muscle grow faster, better easier on males?
Also, I remember something about women being less susceptible to damage or something, so you can give them +2 CON I guess.
>>44187031
Let me try to rephrase that:
Yes, policemen, firefighters, exterminators and sewage workers are completely reasonable and fair comparisons to fighters, bards, druids, clerics with literal miracle powers and rogues who do ninja shit. Among others.
>>44187030
You know what the thing is about most women, even the supposed "women against feminism"? They oppose the term feminism, the label it has gained. They oppose people like Big Red, they oppose the association of modern feminism with fat activism and LGBTQAOMGWTFBBQMLG360NOSCOPE and most of all they oppose the overt misandrism of feminism.
Engage one of these anti-feminists in an open discussion and you will find, without exception, that they inherrently support all the goodies that feminism has given them. They do not care about men, they do not care about equality and they do not care about equal obligations. They just discard the label "feminism" because it is no longer of any use to them.
In this way, feminism works a lot like Islam: you have a tiny core of "radicals" who are actually willing to fight for their ideology, an outer core of alternative radicals who seek to use other means to empose the same ideology, and a gigantic outer shell of those sympathetic to their cause but not directly aligned to them. Ironically enough the "least radical" group is also the most dangerous in both cases.
>>44187039
It works by men having proportionally more muscle mass and larger bodies. There's generally a higher potential for strength, so to speak.
>Also, I remember something about women being less susceptible to damage or something, so you can give them +2 CON I guess.
Women's higher pain tolerance is a myth that is generally only true during pregnancy due to altered hormonal state.
>>44187039
Men have much higher testosterone since puberty.
Test, an androgenic steroid hormone, is responsible for:
1. Denser and bigger bones
2. Bigger, stronger and more easily recovering muscles
3. Developing the male genitalia
4. Deeper voice, body hair, facial hair, and other traditionally male characteristics are heavily influenced by it
You may also recognize some products like test-e and test cipionate, which are anabolic steroids, as having test in the name. That's 'cause they -are- testosterone, and are the reason why women who pin end up looking and sounding like dudes. Well, half dudes.
Its one helluva drug.
>>44187030
First of all, I said millenials.
Which, looking up, is 42 percent of millenial females and I'm sure the answer is less for millenial men. Either way, I was wrong.
I admit that.
But like, come the fuck on dude. Even if they won't describe themselves like that, they're all on the "women are equal, air conditioning is sexist" shit
"85 percent claimed they believe in equality for women"
As much as people act like "oh no, I'm not a unfun feminazi" they still allow the slow, but steady movement of progress towards women having a bigger slice of the pie.
And they aren't doing this through logic, strength, wisdom, dexterity or constitution
They're doing it through charisma.
>>44187078
>>44187039
Oh and no, they aren't less susceptible to damage, that doesn't really make sense unless you are implying they have tougher skin, muscles, bones and organs. Which they don't, to the point where their bones are weaker than men's (hence why osteoporosis used to be called a female disease).
Pain resistance is also a myth, there are studies that point to different directions.
>>44186796
Being twice as strong on average is pretty damn significant.
If you want to actually stat the differences between men and women then there is essentially no point to women being adventurers.
The strongest female athletes have a grip strength roughly equal to the average male's grip strength. The best woman's soccer team in the world was beaten by a high school teenage boys team. There is simply no contest here.
>>44186844
> that's dumb you can't measure charisma
> women are more charismatic on average
What a thoroughly retarded post.
>>44187130
I didn't say you couldn't measure it.
I'm just saying if you're having it as a stat, compared to something like 'strength' you're being ridiculous.
One is merely an observable fact.
One is much more reliant on circumstantial factors.
>>44186844
>all of these are completely culturally dependant.
I don't think so. Etiquette is culturally dependent, so a great leader can fumble horribly due to a lack of it, but personality is isn't culturally dependant (neither are the others elements up to a certain point, but this one is the most glaring).
Consider that a person with high cha will also have great adaptativeness.
And you can study persuasiveness. That's the entire point of things like NLP technics, and they are damn effective, and culturally independant.
>>44187039
>Menz Be Stronk but how exactly does it work? Are they born stronger already or does muscle grow faster, better easier on males?
To make it short, males produce testosterone at puberty, which makes muscle grow. It's a secondary sex characteristic.
>>44186922
> I know nothing at all about neuroscience but I can make up things that make me sound right.
Seriously, do you have any citations here at all?
>>44187149
>personality is isn't culturally dependant
Yeah it fucking is. Especially if we're talking about a fantasy situation.
You think all your human personality quirks would work on a lizardfolk?
Hey, let me inspire you with words of encouragement.
Sorry dude, I'm a giant lizard. I don't care.
>>44187094
>>44187057
So maybe what should be done is women just get a cap to their strength instead of men getting a raw bonus to it?
Cos raw bonus kinda breaks things in my opinion.
You know, the whole idea is kinda stupid then you think about it, because then you get to that, there should also be age disadvantages - minuses to STR , CON and DEX every 5 or so years after 25
>>44187153
>volume does not impact processing power potential in two equal systems.
Kay, but don't worry neuroplasticity means the brain can make up for it more or less, potential is just potential afterall.
>>44187183
Realistically, men have a +2 standard deviation advantage in strength; but how many games use a standard distribution? GURPS?
>>44187183
That is a thing actually, the age thing.
>>44187202
This is true, but in relevance to the topic at hand those this make women on average any less Intelligent than men to a significant degree worth noting in stats?
>>44187089
Honestly, I'm inclined to agree with you. And sorry for the snark of 'Try again.' Long night.
That said, first, good data is a necessity when taking a potentially controversial opinion. And pro-'feminist' stats irk me particularly given the oft quoted myth of 'the 70 cents on the dollar.'
And two, I actually think there's a significant distinction between a person who claims to support sex equality and a self-proclaimed feminist.
Being seen as a monolithic force with majority support with a statement like 'the majority of Americans are feminists' is a powerful weapon for social and peer pressure. Any effort to undermine that perception weakens the movement and serves to check its more egregious overreaches.
>>44185985
Women get an internal biomolecular factory.
In biological terms, that's a major investment; with attendant social bonuses as well - not being expected to fight, being taken care of, not being murdered if their side loses a fight, etc.
Men get to be expendable meatbots; to the point where the bottom 80% of them are invisible to women without externally imposed social welfare policies like permanent monogamy.
>>44187224
Not really.
I was just being anal about the other anon's logic.
Women possess (Ex) Suck dick
Not gonna bother reading thus thread before I post.
If the difference between a human and an orc's strength is +4, the difference between male and female humans is too small to mechanically measure. I also like how by your method men get no negatives while also assuming women are more attractive than men
>>44187274
they are
>>44187257
Is being gay a prestige class?
>>44187175
>personality is culturally dependant
1° Look at the definition of personality in an encyclopedia (or look at the wiki, I don't care, just do some basic search on the terms)
2° So, you've decided in your corner that lizardmen are completely alien, and that the end of it ? Not only does it contract a bunch of offical campaigns and other published materials, but if you're implying that there can't be social interaction between races simply because because they're different, that's plain stupid (if only, because many of them have charisma related abilities that are supposed to apply to the regular party of humanoid adventurers).
3° Domestication : If it's possible to tame animals and have a relationship with them, it should be possible to have one with an intelligent species. They both have sentience, you can find "buttons" to push to make them do what you want them to do.
And yes, taming will or won't go well depending on your personality.
4° Look at the fucking definition.
![SpiderShrugBlank[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/sU0p7Cm.jpg "SpiderShrugBlank[1].jpg")
>>44187257
>>44187288
Men are probably better at sucking cock than women too. When you sit down and think about it, women are so incredibly useless and such a waste of space and resources, you wonder why men put up with them. Reproduction is literally the only answer, so what reason does a man who doesn't want to reproduce have to associate with women?
>>44187285
they are not to other straight women, gay men and non human creatures
also some people are not attracted to different ethnicites
also a lot of women are just straight up ugly
ether way, it does not adds up to a raw, universal bonus to Charisma
>>44187321
>they are not to other straight women, gay men and non human creatures
other straight women, gay men and non human creatures, on average, like women more than men
it would add up to a universal bonus to charisma
>>44187321
Wasn't there a study showing heterossexual women as also being able to feel attracted towards other women? Meanwhile heterossexual males don't (feel attracted to men, well most of them) or something. Keep in mind the hetero thing is self declared.
Don't know how accurate it is and it could just be a propaganda piece but it's worth checking out.yurifags gonna love if it's true
>>44187321
>they are not to other straight women, gay men and non human creatures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%80%9CWomen_are_wonderful%E2%80%9D_effect
Both men and women are convinced that all women are great and all men are horrible. Pretty sure most people would rather leave a child behind with a woman with a criminal record than with a man with a clean sheet.
Face it, women are an inferior waste of space yet everyone prefers them for some reason. Men because they literally have no other option in terms of reproduction and women because of in-group preference.
>>44187345
Gay men like men though, they ally with women because women were initially more willing to support the cause.
>>44187290
Look. If you think a 10 charisma lizardfolk should lose a debate or popularity contest in his own village to an 18 charisma human, you're crazy, And if you go, add a situational modifier, than you're already admitting that charisma is a situational fucking skill
Something with x strength can lift x
something with x charisma can do x task if the circumstances are right and only then
Charisma is culturally dependent
This is a bait post and you should feel bad, and I should feel bad for taking it.
If you REALLY are fixated on being an autistic /pol/ level retard and having male and female adventurers be different, make the differences interesting, in a way that doesn't immediately alienate most good players. Make it play off setting somehow.
Ie; men can cast spells spontaneously, women get daemons ala Golden Compass.
Men get powered up at day, women get powered up at night.
Men can slow time 5 minutes per day, women can phase through things 5 minutes per day.
TL;DR kill yourself and stop shitting up this board, this post wasn't even long you huge faggot.
>>44187354
Jesus christ, calm down anon.
>>44187363
>Gay men like men though
Gay men are not immune to the "women are wonderful effect"
>they ally with women because women were initially more willing to support the cause.
>support
Pfeh, more like hijack. They turned homosexuality into LGBTOMGWTFBBQ to justify their otherkin trigender transromantic tendencies and completely gloss over the fact that homosexual men are far, far, far, far, FAAAAAR more likely to become the victims of violence than homosexual women.
It's the same thing feminism has been doing to pretty much fucking anything: they take either a male problem or a universal problem and spin it around until it becomes a woman's issue.
Like women themselves, feminism is a parasite constantly looking for a host to drain of its life force.
>>44187363
>gay men like men though
They like gay men, and on average, most men aren't gay. Averages motherfucker, remember that's what we're talking bout
>>44186975
>women have never been firefighters, police, guards, scientists, nurses, soldiers, doctors, or manual laborers
>>44187381
Women can use hemomancy, Men can use muscle magic and Faggots/Trannies/Etc can use biomorphing.
>>44187382
I'll calm down once the facts change.
>>44187394
I'm not saying they never have, quite the contrary. I'm just saying that a miniscule minority of them deserve the position.
I think British law even changed to the point where female fireMEN (as long as we keep referring to garbagemen as men, firemen deserve the same distinction) can enter the force even after failing the physical exam. Or maybe it was Sweden, I'm not sure.
Nevertheless, of course positive discrimination has boosted the number of women in traditionally male roles. However, that doesn't make them competent.
>>44187354
>studies show women are universally loved
>therefore the opposite must be true
I don't think I've ever seen someone so thoroughly reject their own citation
>>44187441
How is being shitty the opposite of being loved?
Not even agreeing with him but, look at say, the american candidates for 2016.
>>44187399
So you are as dellusional as a feminist?
>>44187439
Just admit you don't want to play with female players or PCs
>>44187394
And studies show that they vastly underperform in all those professions compared to men. (With the exception of scientists, nurses, and doctors where physicality isn't important.)
>>44187441
>therefore the opposite must be true
If people have an overwhelmingly positive view of women, that means they have a less positive view of men. This is basic logic, but then again logic is a white patriarchal construct that keeps womyn of color down.
Or are you going to deny that most people overwhelmingly trust women over men when it comes to looking over an unattended child?
>>44187461
I forgot how Hillary speaks for and represents all women everywhere. But your totally right man, I'm sure female politicians are on average way shittier than male ones
>>44187463
I'll admit it, but I don't see how that changes the facts. Well, female players at least. Female PCs are fine because, if played properly, they are exactly all the things real women are not.
>>44187486
>I forgot how Hillary speaks for and represents all women everywhere.
#notallwomen :^)
>>44187509
>:^)
>>44186919
>>44187119
>>44186354
>>44186582
>>44186919
>women get penalties to base strength
>gnomes/halflings, literally 3 feet tall, take no penalty to strength
>arguing realism
>arguing suspension of disbelief
>other assorted /r9k/ tier autisms
The gas chambers are too good for scum like you.
>>44187487
>women PCs are okay
>but female players aren't
Literal neckbeard confirmed
>>44187486
What? What does that have anything to do with what I said?
I said CANDIDATES, meaning people love shitty people like Tumor Trump or Shillary, so being shitty and being loved aren't mutually exclusive
Are you actually fucking retarted you little cunt? Way to miss the fucking point to project your shitty views
>>44187544
you nigger, both those races take a -2 penalty to strength.
Although you're right, if being a gnome or a halfling is -2 compared to a human, then women should get no penalty.
![cd18e7d3a3ef763101d0476f087037c6b32220c580a5a13f167adc12088d1d74[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/6jY1fFI.jpg "cd18e7d3a3ef763101d0476f087037c6b32220c580a5a13f167adc12088d1d74[1].jpg")
>>44187544
>Literal neckbeard confirmed
Here's your reply.
>>44187203
If you really wanted to go that route giving women ST 9 and men ST 11 instead of every adult human ST 10 by default maps very well to the 40% difference in upper body strength. Since GURPS strength is non linear.
>>44187555
I don't know, manlets are still usually stronger than women.
>>44187580
Not really. If you're ever lucky enough to watch a 5ft 10 amazon goddess destroy a 5ft chink, consider yourself lucky.
>>44185985
Females receive a minor STR penalty and DEX bonus, with their stat caps (if these exist) ending up lower/higher respectively by the same amount. This would be best represented in a -1/+1 model if we used D&D 5e as an example.
Unless your game differentiates between the ability to pick out pattern breakup over the ability to differentiate between similar colours, there's really no non-cultural difference significant enough to stat beyond the STR/DEX split.
I'd not include it. Not to avoid SJW whining, but because the difference means virtually nothing and doesn't actually provide anything interesting or relevant to chargen or playing a male/female character. You can do that by making in-game cultures with biases and cultural views of "normal" behavior for men/women and exploring the life of a character who exists within that culture, and that doesn't need stats.
>>44187487
>Female PCs are fine because, if played properly, they are exactly all the things real women are not.
Capable of low enough standards to be attracted to you?
I think that RPG stats are one of those places where we can unironically advocate for equity because it's more fun and simple.
Are you people really so easily offended you will argue that being 50% stronger than women of the same height AND being much taller on average is not significant?
Not wanting it in a game is one thing but there is not a single valid reason to deny the difference is there and that iit is enormous.
>>44187655
Are you really so easily offended you will argue that being treated better by people in society than men on average is not significant?
>>44186935
WTF is this wishy-washy bullshit? A length? How long is a fucking length? Is this some hurr durr imperial measure? Do you even metric system?
>>44187655
I'm more amused by how every time I hear this statistic, it comes from the mouth of the bottom tier of physical strength for men.
Almost like they're looking for something to cheer themselves up or something.
>>44187684
>Is this some hurr durr imperial measure?
It's a measurement of how long the average Yuropoor can keep his head placed between his own asscheeks while farting and inhaling simultaneously. You measure the length by adding one inch per minute, which means a length is usually around 37 meters in your units.
>>44187694
Oh snap.
>>44187680
Way to bring up something unrelated to my post.
>>44187686
Why should that be relevant? Facts are facts, anybody who has a problem with them is a shitty person.
I am just getting annoyed by how often you people blindly repeat the 'no significant difference' nonsense.
![nx4cba[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/86VX3QO.jpg "nx4cba[1].jpg")
>>44187619
>The only redeeming quality of women literally in every single way equal to men is being attracted to someone who does not exist in their world
Sick burn bruh. You sure showed me.
>>44187375
>should
>should
>absolute
Yeah, if only d&d used a randomizer system, like a polyhedron with different outcomes.
On a sidenote, devils probably have a shitty time in your settings, since they can't convince even the lowliest of peasants to make a deal to the the species barrier and unfamiliar localion.
On a second sidenote, I still haven't any other evidence than your headcanon on lizardfolks.
>Something with x strength can lift x
Because there never are situational modifiers for tests involving strength ? (in your case, difficult terrain, nature of the object, and situation can apply as modifiers, and the GM can call for a check)
After all, it's not like climb, jump, damage or simply strenght checks had non-reliable results.
Since cha related skills are almost always used against another sentient being, situational modifiers are the abstration of an opposed check. Humans aren't potatoesfree cookie to the one that gets this oneand your gear isn't usually actively trying to resist you lifting it, unless it's cursed or gravity has a will of its own in the setting.
Anyways, now that you established that you didn't like d&d, do you have suggestions for another system ? Because saying that the system is flawed and nonsensical and then trying to put Cha as a gender modifier makes little sense for me. Especially since you didn't provide reliable evidence that persuasiveness (or leadership) was a woman's trait (despite being entirely situational, somehow).
Now, what do you thing about dex ? women are usually more flexible and have better fine motive skills, hmm ?
>>44186215
Woman on average do tend to be more sociable then man. So yes do I think this is realistic.
>>44187722
Nigger you were the one saying situational like it was a bad thing.
A woman will be way more successful at stopping two dudes from fighting than a man. On average.
This is something I've learned from observation.
That's a charisma advantage if I've ever seen one.
Source: Go fuck yourself
>>44187718
Who cares if it's relevant, it's funny how the only people who care are the people nobody else cares about.
>>44187769
That is only because they'd like to fuck her anon.
Or because she's not perceived as a threath due to her nature.
>>44187555
Not in modern editions
:^)
But yeah even with the -2, the difference between a man and a woman (even a short woman), and a man and a 3 foot tall, 45 pound gnome illustrates the point just as well, you're right there.
>>44187769
>A woman will be way more successful at stopping two dudes from fighting than a man. On average.
is this why all security officers and bouncers are female?
>>44187769
Well, in that case why should a situational disadvantage (like trying to order a bunch of warriors on a battlefield as a frail maiden, or negociating with merchants and nobility as a woman in a medieval setting,...) be justified by a non-situational stat increase ?
>>44185985
MINUS
FOUR
STRENGTH
also negatives in all stats AND charisma because let's be real, when did you ever meet a woman that had charisma IRL
>classes aren't sex-gated
>implying women warriors are real
>implying female rangers existed
>>44187902
>Implying rangers existed
>Implying wizards existed
>Implying dungeons existed
>Implying dragons existed
>>44187878
:^)
Good post my man I really hope you dont break your neck In a boating related accident and drown, that would be bad
>>44187966
>women in charge of not losing their god damn mind over facts and threatening to kill you over the internet
>>44187982
Where in that post did I threaten to kill you my man, boating is a fun and dangerous activity and I just want you to be safe out there because you seem to have had no mother figure in your life to love you like I do.
I will send you a picture of my penis if you like but I must warn you it is very small and hairy.
![1388959834728[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/hLkKXD8.jpg "1388959834728[1].jpg")
>>44188004
>mother figure
>Implying it's not the marginalization and elimination of the father figure that has created a society where women try (and fail) to be men and men are scared sissies.
Single mothers are the ones raising men as if they're defective women.
>>44188032
:^) I'm sorry my man you posted a laughinggirls.jpg meme, that means you were right all along!
My mistake!
>>44185985
Dimorphism is for NPCs, I recognise average trends and implement them. Bringing PCs into it is foolish and far more hassle than it could ever be worth.
>>44185985
Here is your reply
Why are we focusing on this bullshit when we all know the real difference that needs to be addressed is agrarians vs. hunter-gatherers? It sickens me that some gamemasters let people play hunter-gatherers with lawful alignments, it's completely inaccurate to the current prevailing theories about the development of the hill cultures of upland Asia as a response to encroachment by Chinese states in the feudal period.
And don't get me started on pastoral nomads.
>>44185985
In games like DnD I don't think the scale of ability scores would be suitable to represent the differences between men and women. Sure, the average woman is less strong than average man, but a female fighter would still be stronger than the average man, and while less strong than a male fighter with the same training, the difference wouldn't be huge.
In games like Dark Heresy, where you have larger variance in stats due to using a percentage-based system (average human has 30 out of 100 for their stats, but it's not unlikely to get some stats in 20s and some in high 30s during chargen), having a small stat difference between men and women would be justified, although often irrelevant.
>>44186446
>sexual dimorphism isn't really much of a thing in the human species
nigger what
>>44185985
>Stating
THE WORD IS "STATTING", YOU IDORT
>>44185985
Why not just men get +1 strength and women get +1 dex? Or, even better, just forget the whole thing because it's a fucking fantasy game.
Women wouldn't even be PCs the rate that players play them at, because women are less ambitious. Most women who try to be men - even in D&D- are internally miserable.
1 women PC out of 50 is realistic, half and half is not.
>>44185985
>what mechanical and mostly-fair differences you can give male and female adventurers
The short answer is none. The somewhat longer answer is that representing sexual dimorphism will cost you more players than it will earn you, and thus isn't worth it. Designing game mechanics to be true to life isn't nearly as important as designing games to please players. I would wager that most players don't care about sexual dimorphism and a small portion would despise any such mechanics. Feel free to include the rules if you want, that's your decision as a game designer, but I think that considering your audience is very important to making a game people will actually want to play.
there aren't female PCs when I DM. there aren't even female NPCs or references to any females. they do not exist and it's good that way.
>>44189233
....Are you playing that dwarf setting where only male dwarves exist and they're spawned from mushrooms?
>>44189367
no, I prefer playing human-only settings.
>>44186582
Compared to other species, we're barely sexually dimorphic. For Christ's sake, with just some HRT (sometimes even without), you can confuse someone biologically female for someone biologically male and vice versa. Try that on some other vertebrates, like those species of fish where the male is only a parasite to its female.
>>44188934
Spiders have sexual dimorphism. Anglerfish have sexual dimorphism. Humans obviously do as well, but so little by comparison that it's really quite insignificant. If men are as tall as a house, you can talk about sexual dimorphism.
>>44186591
>have smaller brains
The ratio brain mass/body mass is on average the same for men and women. Or are you saying that you're less intelligent than a whale?
>and are emotionally unstable.
Did you know that males also had a hormonal cycle?
