I don't see what the bru-ha-ha is all about. Setting aside the ridiculous woke worldview where everyone is both the same but also special and different (which typically implodes under its own weight), there are physiological differences between males and females represented in just about every binary species. Humans aren't even the most significant example of this, and the differences aren't even typical or similar from one species to the next. A female might be larger or more aggressive than a male in one species and be comparatively docile and subdued in the next. Stepping into fiction, there's no reason this sexual dimorphism wouldn't be even more significant, since now we're dealing with a nearly unlimited hodge-podge of man and mer, beast-kin and hybrid, terrestrial and alien life forms, etc.

My take on it? Why stop at just attributes? You can certainly illustrate typical differences between men and women using attributes, sure - say, +2 to STR for men, +2 to DEX for women, and that obviously still gives ample room for the cherry-picked outliers people love to use in their arguments - but take it a step further when the opportunity presents. Bonuses, perks, or abilities relating to aggression or empathy, say, or give females brighter coloration and lethal venom, while giving males subdued hues and thicker hide, perhaps. Go wild.

Menstruating female characters should have to roll on a random alignment table twice a day.

Quote from: FF_Ninja on April 13, 2023, 12:56:07 AM
I don't see what the bru-ha-ha is all about.

Masculine egos.

This retarded discussion comes up every now and then, and it's never initiated by women gamers, and rarely even participated in by them. Gamers are even more sedentary than the general population (who are 70% overweight or obese - cue some fat bastard telling me "no bro it's all muscle"), which means that as youths they may be underweight or overweight, but as mature adults they're all overweight or obese. But they all coulda bin a contendah, and they project their personal insecurities to the game.

This is why, for example, the "create yourself as a character" thing is so very fucking painful for all concerned. You get that "65% of drivers think they're above average" thing - but the actual stat breaks down by gender, males are much more likely to overestimate their abilities. One way to pump yourself up is to put others down, "hey at least I'm superior to a female." You'll also get supposedly self-deprecating things of, "but I'm not that good at -" and then the guy adds some characteristic which he doesn't think is important, therefore being bad at it doesn't matter.

There's nothing wrong with masturbation, but don't do it publicly, please.

3d6 in order.

And if it's a point-buy game, then you get what you pay your points for, regardless of other traits. If the GM won't let you choose trait X because your character is female or whatever, then your GM doesn't understand the purpose of point-buy.

But in any case, and for proper gaming, 3d6 in order.

Quote from: I on April 13, 2023, 11:55:15 PM
Menstruating female characters should have to roll on a random alignment table twice a day.

My wife asked what the giggling was about. She listened, thought for second, and replied, "It isn't wrong."

But she always makes random tables for her characters, whether it is what sort of spell is randomly cast by her chaos priestess or what her Aslan character is thinking about when his mind is read (hint: tea, poetry, the clan that cast him out, or old battles).

Quote from: FF_Ninja on April 13, 2023, 12:56:07 AM
My take on it? Why stop at just attributes? You can certainly illustrate typical differences between men and women using attributes, sure - say, +2 to STR for men, +2 to DEX for women, and that obviously still gives ample room for the cherry-picked outliers people love to use in their arguments - but take it a step further when the opportunity presents. Bonuses, perks, or abilities relating to aggression or empathy, say, or give females brighter coloration and lethal venom, while giving males subdued hues and thicker hide, perhaps. Go wild.

First, it sounds like you've read Heinlein too - in Starship Troopers almost all the pilots are females because they tend to have better reflexes (dexterity) and men tend to be stronger.

The other suggestions you have is kind of how Traveller does it with aliens.

My wife is having a lot of fun running a male Aslan, who constantly asks the one female in the party to manage his money for him. Or refers the mob boss asking about payment to "the clan female". She also makes him, in character, reluctant to admit to being able to do "non-male" work that he's actually trained for - but has him learning to accept it over time. The rest of the players are men and they love hearing her talk about science, tech, and math as "women's work". We are worried though, that someone is going to explain to him prostitutes as "females that can be rented by men without a clan female" and he decides to "rent a clan female" next time he needs accounting or science done.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on April 14, 2023, 02:48:39 AM

Quote from: FF_Ninja on April 13, 2023, 12:56:07 AM
I don't see what the bru-ha-ha is all about.

Masculine egos.

This retarded discussion comes up every now and then, and it's never initiated by women gamers, and rarely even participated in by them. Gamers are even more sedentary than the general population (who are 70% overweight or obese - cue some fat bastard telling me "no bro it's all muscle"), which means that as youths they may be underweight or overweight, but as mature adults they're all overweight or obese. But they all coulda bin a contendah, and they project their personal insecurities to the game.

This is why, for example, the "create yourself as a character" thing is so very fucking painful for all concerned. You get that "65% of drivers think they're above average" thing - but the actual stat breaks down by gender, males are much more likely to overestimate their abilities. One way to pump yourself up is to put others down, "hey at least I'm superior to a female." You'll also get supposedly self-deprecating things of, "but I'm not that good at -" and then the guy adds some characteristic which he doesn't think is important, therefore being bad at it doesn't matter.

There's nothing wrong with masturbation, but don't do it publicly, please.

I believe you're way off, here. Your assumption that this argument stems from male ego or self-perspective, but I feel like that's wilfully ignorant of the nuance of this argument.

Sexual dimorphism exists in nearly every binary species (and I say "nearly" because it's basically "every" but I can't be 100% sure there isn't some outlier in nature). Physical build and appearance differ drastically between males and females of a species, and differences can and do extend into body chemistry, hormones, emotional responses, and behavior. These differences aren't sporadic, they're consistent: if you compare a male and a female specimen who are otherwise comparable or equal, you can measure and contrast all of these differences.

I don't really understand the hypocrisy. We recognize differences enough to separate males and females in competition. Medicine recognizes and respects the vital differences between males and females. We study how males and females succeed and fail at different rates in various occupations and lifestyles. We observe things in life that are typically "male" and "female." Yet, when it comes down to recognizing the sexual dimorphism on a character sheet, that is somehow a bridge too far? Male and female are wildly different but it's offensive when one notices it - or God forbid, simulates it?

In fact, it really appears you're the one who's being rather sexist here. Honest conversations on sexual dimorphism recognize and appreciate the differences between males and females are comparative and complementary, but your argument seems to suggest that the whole topic really actually is about male ego-stroking - because males are supposedly superior to females in this argument.

They aren't. They're different. And just because one specimen has all the benefits of growing in a testosterone soup, doesn't imply the other specimen is inferior - unless the only measure of value and capability if physical strength.

If someone wants to represent the differences between males and females of a species in their system, there are a plethora of ways to do that that are tasteful and interesting. If that makes you personally feel the need to get offended and throw insults, then that's on you, I guess.

Quote from: Tod13 on April 14, 2023, 10:13:10 AM

Quote from: FF_Ninja on April 13, 2023, 12:56:07 AM
My take on it? Why stop at just attributes? You can certainly illustrate typical differences between men and women using attributes, sure - say, +2 to STR for men, +2 to DEX for women, and that obviously still gives ample room for the cherry-picked outliers people love to use in their arguments - but take it a step further when the opportunity presents. Bonuses, perks, or abilities relating to aggression or empathy, say, or give females brighter coloration and lethal venom, while giving males subdued hues and thicker hide, perhaps. Go wild.

First, it sounds like you've read Heinlein too - in Starship Troopers almost all the pilots are females because they tend to have better reflexes (dexterity) and men tend to be stronger.

The other suggestions you have is kind of how Traveller does it with aliens.

My wife is having a lot of fun running a male Aslan, who constantly asks the one female in the party to manage his money for him. Or refers the mob boss asking about payment to "the clan female". She also makes him, in character, reluctant to admit to being able to do "non-male" work that he's actually trained for - but has him learning to accept it over time. The rest of the players are men and they love hearing her talk about science, tech, and math as "women's work". We are worried though, that someone is going to explain to him prostitutes as "females that can be rented by men without a clan female" and he decides to "rent a clan female" next time he needs accounting or science done.

I'm recalling a setting where men do not learn to read because it's considered "feminine" and for the life of me, I can't recall...

Oh, right. Brandon Sanderson's Stormlight Archives series, I think. Their culture basically is like, "The truest feminine skills are that which can be done with one hand; the truest masculine skills are that which requires two." So men don't typically read, write, do art, etc. and have no capacity to do so culturally - though they do learn to read and communicate using glyphs as a stand-in.

Quote from: FF_Ninja on April 14, 2023, 01:42:02 PM

Quote from: Tod13 on April 14, 2023, 10:13:10 AM

Quote from: FF_Ninja on April 13, 2023, 12:56:07 AM
My take on it? Why stop at just attributes? You can certainly illustrate typical differences between men and women using attributes, sure - say, +2 to STR for men, +2 to DEX for women, and that obviously still gives ample room for the cherry-picked outliers people love to use in their arguments - but take it a step further when the opportunity presents. Bonuses, perks, or abilities relating to aggression or empathy, say, or give females brighter coloration and lethal venom, while giving males subdued hues and thicker hide, perhaps. Go wild.

First, it sounds like you've read Heinlein too - in Starship Troopers almost all the pilots are females because they tend to have better reflexes (dexterity) and men tend to be stronger.

The other suggestions you have is kind of how Traveller does it with aliens.

My wife is having a lot of fun running a male Aslan, who constantly asks the one female in the party to manage his money for him. Or refers the mob boss asking about payment to "the clan female". She also makes him, in character, reluctant to admit to being able to do "non-male" work that he's actually trained for - but has him learning to accept it over time. The rest of the players are men and they love hearing her talk about science, tech, and math as "women's work". We are worried though, that someone is going to explain to him prostitutes as "females that can be rented by men without a clan female" and he decides to "rent a clan female" next time he needs accounting or science done.

I'm recalling a setting where men do not learn to read because it's considered "feminine" and for the life of me, I can't recall...

Oh, right. Brandon Sanderson's Stormlight Archives series, I think. Their culture basically is like, "The truest feminine skills are that which can be done with one hand; the truest masculine skills are that which requires two." So men don't typically read, write, do art, etc. and have no capacity to do so culturally - though they do learn to read and communicate using glyphs as a stand-in.

That's cool. I tried his Mistworld trilogy and kind of lost interest halfway through the second book. But I really, really like that concept.

I was thinking of how to do a feline race based on lions. Male leadership, but females are the hunters/warriors.
And then something similar for a dog race using hyenas. Females rule and males are second (or third) rate citizens.

Quote from: Tod13 on April 14, 2023, 10:01:38 AM

Quote from: I on April 13, 2023, 11:55:15 PM
Menstruating female characters should have to roll on a random alignment table twice a day.

My wife asked what the giggling was about. She listened, thought for second, and replied, "It isn't wrong."

But she always makes random tables for her characters, whether it is what sort of spell is randomly cast by her chaos priestess or what her Aslan character is thinking about when his mind is read (hint: tea, poetry, the clan that cast him out, or old battles).

Your wife sounds like a very cool person, and you sound like a lucky guy to have her.  Yeah, in my experience, if the girl is her normal sweet self during "that time of the month" it means she's feeling bad.  If she's feeling good and sprightly, it means she's temporarily CHAOTIC EVIL so stay away!!!

Quote from: FF_Ninja on April 13, 2023, 12:56:07 AM
I don't see what the bru-ha-ha is all about. Setting aside the ridiculous woke worldview where everyone is both the same but also special and different (which typically implodes under its own weight), there are physiological differences between males and females represented in just about every binary species. Humans aren't even the most significant example of this, and the differences aren't even typical or similar from one species to the next. A female might be larger or more aggressive than a male in one species and be comparatively docile and subdued in the next. Stepping into fiction, there's no reason this sexual dimorphism wouldn't be even more significant, since now we're dealing with a nearly unlimited hodge-podge of man and mer, beast-kin and hybrid, terrestrial and alien life forms, etc.

My take on it? Why stop at just attributes? You can certainly illustrate typical differences between men and women using attributes, sure - say, +2 to STR for men, +2 to DEX for women, and that obviously still gives ample room for the cherry-picked outliers people love to use in their arguments - but take it a step further when the opportunity presents. Bonuses, perks, or abilities relating to aggression or empathy, say, or give females brighter coloration and lethal venom, while giving males subdued hues and thicker hide, perhaps. Go wild.

This is more in the spirit of my original post. D&D's attribute system is rather limited in this respect since many different characteristics of attributes are lumped together and it's difficult to distinguish anything meaningful using a very limited set of numbers. And as I pointed out in the original post, there isn't a reason to assume that non-human races share the same pattern of sexual dimorphism that humans do.

Off-the-cuff ideas: Human men might be able to perform a 1/day usage of Intelligence in lieu of Wisdom, or Strength in lieu of Charisma. Whereas Human women might have a 1/day power to determine if a target character is lying.

Quote from: Dinopaw on April 14, 2023, 09:41:55 PM
...And as I pointed out in the original post, there isn't a reason to assume that non-human races share the same pattern of sexual dimorphism that humans do.

There's actually plenty of reason to assume so. Sexual dimorphism, which refers to the differences in appearance and size between males and females of the same species, is quite common in the animal kingdom, including mammals and non-mammals. The prevalence and degree of sexual dimorphism vary among different groups of animals, but it is generally more common than not. Since we see sexual dimorphism constantly exhibited throughout most species - including humans - it stands to reason binary non-humans (terrestrial or otherwise) would as well.

Of course, you're free to create, say, a monomorphic species of elves or orcs or little green men. You do whatever you want when it's your world.

The problem I think you're going to find trying to represent sex differences by attribute modifiers is that 3-18 just isn't that big of a range, especially when you also need to provide for stat differences for all the different fantasy races on top of that, and you also don't want the stat modifiers to make character combinations impossible. It'd be a bit easier in something like a d100 system, where you have much more granularity.

That said, if you're inclined to do it, the answer might be to play with the dice rolls, rather than the modifiers. Maybe males roll 2d6+6 for STR, while females roll 3d6, so then the range is the same, but the male average would be higher. It might be a way to distinguish between race modifiers and sex modifiers. Thinking about it, I'd probably give different races different rolls, and different sexes linear modifiers, but you could argue it the other way too.

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 15, 2023, 11:12:39 AM
The problem I think you're going to find trying to represent sex differences by attribute modifiers is that 3-18 just isn't that big of a range, especially when you also need to provide for stat differences for all the different fantasy races on top of that, and you also don't want the stat modifiers to make character combinations impossible. It'd be a bit easier in something like a d100 system, where you have much more granularity.

Why? It is not reasonable to say that certain race/class combos are sub-optimal, such as dwarven wizards? Of course, if you use racial classes, like B/X or similar, then you can substitute class abilities for lesser ability score modifiers.

QuoteThat said, if you're inclined to do it, the answer might be to play with the dice rolls, rather than the modifiers. Maybe males roll 2d6+6 for STR, while females roll 3d6, so then the range is the same, but the male average would be higher. It might be a way to distinguish between race modifiers and sex modifiers. Thinking about it, I'd probably give different races different rolls, and different sexes linear modifiers, but you could argue it the other way too.

This is exactly how Runequest worked. In that game each race had it's own die rolls for each stat. I'm a big proponent of determining a characters race and sex before rolling for ability scores.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on April 14, 2023, 02:48:39 AMit's never initiated by women gamers, and rarely even participated in by them.

This statement is 100% true but not for the reason you think. Women don't care about Strength limits for female characters because they rarely, if ever, want to play a giant musclebound female character.

The biggest group objecting to such a rule are male players who want to play female fighters who try to fuck every male NPC they come across. This is the main upside to female strength limits, in that it scares away a big group of players that you don't want in your group in the first place.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on April 15, 2023, 01:41:25 PM

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on April 14, 2023, 02:48:39 AMit's never initiated by women gamers, and rarely even participated in by them.

This statement is 100% true but not for the reason you think. Women don't care about Strength limits for female characters because they rarely, if ever, want to play a giant musclebound female character.

The biggest group objecting to such a rule are male players who want to play female fighters who try to fuck every male NPC they come across. This is the main upside to female strength limits, in that it scares away a big group of players that you don't want in your group in the first place.

That might be a generational thing. I've known a few women who occasionally play big dumb fighter/barbarian types. Sometimes, it seems to be motivated by a desire to play a character which is very different from them. Sometimes you see it with women that are paranoid or sensitive about being hit on in-game, and so want to make their character sexually unapproachable. I haven't personally seen one, but I imagine you also occasionally just get a female player that has a muscle-mommy fetish. It's not like weird kinks are exclusive to men.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on April 15, 2023, 01:35:52 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 15, 2023, 11:12:39 AM
The problem I think you're going to find trying to represent sex differences by attribute modifiers is that 3-18 just isn't that big of a range, especially when you also need to provide for stat differences for all the different fantasy races on top of that, and you also don't want the stat modifiers to make character combinations impossible...

Why? It is not reasonable to say that certain race/class combos are sub-optimal, such as dwarven wizards? Of course, if you use racial classes, like B/X or similar, then you can substitute class abilities for lesser ability score modifiers. 

If you want to make certain race-class combinations impossible for setting reasons, that's fine. But I would suggest that it's better to do so by just saying "Dwarfs can't be wizards for x or y reason", rather than doing it via their attribute spread.

To me, there's a difference between "sub-optimal" and "non-viable". As a general rule, I think that if a character option is presented to the player, it should be on a level of rough parity with its alternatives. If making a Dwarf wizard means your character is a bit less good at wizarding than he might have been, but there's some useful consolations (such as more HP, infravision, whatever), that's actually great. I like it when a game encourages players to not always make the most optimized character. If making a Dwarf wizard means your character will be utterly useless, then I don't think the game should have told you that you could make one. In saying this, I'll acknowledge that some people like to make and play a crap character, as a kind of optional "hard mode" for the game. I think they ought to be accommodated via optional rules or homebrewing. But if a game makes it so that a neophyte can come in and accidentally make a badly subpar character, I regard that as a design flaw.

Getting back around to the point, I suspect that all this is why most versions of D&D restrict racial modifiers to no more than +/- 3 to any given stat, at least for core races. I was just suggesting that if you're already only working within a 6-point range for
racial attribute modifiers, trying to add sexual modifiers on top of that seems to be cluttering the numbers to no major benefit.  Come to think of it, you run the risk of encouraging players to choose their character's sex for optimization rather than roleplaying reasons. Not sure if that's something most people would want to encourage.