Quote from: ForgottenF on April 15, 2023, 03:55:22 PMGetting 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.

I see your point. However, I've worked hard to modify my OD&D game so that that it works just as well for 18" tall Pixie PCs as it does for 10' tall Ogre PC. So for me to implement the differences between men and women is trivial compared to those extremes.

However, if you are just talking about standard D&D games, you have an issue where there are only six ability scores and they all work the same way, where a high score is always better than a low score. In this case, the ideal solution would be simply to set a limit on specific ability scores based on the character's race and sex (or other considerations). This way when a player allocates his 3d6 roll results, he will only allocate 17s and 18s it to the unlimited abilities and allocate lower numbers the other ones.

Doing it this way insures that no character is penalized for their character choices. Which is why, IMO, this works better than ability score die roll modifiers.

If you want to keep player characters balanced, I'd say use a point buy system with different attribute caps by sex. IRL the sexes are balanced evolutionarily, for some interesting maths reasons AIR - both have about the same average (mean) number of offspring. They're not balanced for typical action adventure type activities, of course. If you don't care about balance, roll attributes on different dice for each sex the way some BRP games do, so eg females have lower average STR & SIZ.

Females get a bonus to spot checks when looking in the fridge.

Males get a bonus to strength checks when opening jars.

A long time ago, I used -2 Str, +2 in any one Ability score, or +1 in any two Ability scores with the human cap at 18, demi-human cap at 19. It's a simple system and it works without much fuss from my players. (well, it WAS 1983-5, so...)

Assuming you view scores as intrinsic (rather than influenced by the setting), and you consider it important for PCs to statistically reflect the non-player character population in some respects (even though they don't otherwise)... I've done the math based on athletics records and such, and the results suggest it's generally not worth doing. Unless your game really focuses on the fastball, carrying around heavy stuff, or uneven bars, you just don't get a lot of numeric difference.

Like in D&D 3.5, you could squint and maybe give men +1 Strength relative to women, and throw in +2 Strength for purposes of carrying capacity and +1 to hit and damage with thrown weapons. And then you give women, I don't know, +1 to Fortitude to saves versus disease, and +1 to Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and Escape Artist. Again, that's assuming you know what the baseline is for people who are striving in any particular category, and not just applying a population tendency to a PC who already reflects those tendencies before applying their particular characteristics. And what you get is a pack of differences barely worth a feat either way.

At the end of the day, you have males being able achieve 18/00 Strength in AD&D, and women being able to achieve 18/50, and you get a player going, "Why can't I be the one woman who just has 18/87?" Meanwhile, another player is the last cleric with powers in the setting, another is playing a wizard, someone else is a monk of an order with less than 30 members in the whole world, and someone is a spelljamming Vulcan. And you find yourself wondering whether you are defining a difference that makes a difference.

In rpg terms, women have most of their points forcefully placed into the reproductive build, with precious few left over. Apart from slightly better body flexibility, and better color recognition, women are vastly inferior to men in almost every physical metric.

Olympic records:

M 100 metres   9.63
F 100 metres   10.61

M Marathon   2:06:32
F Marathon   2:23:07

M Weightlifting Total   488 kg
F Weightlifting Total   320 kg

M Javelin throw   90.57 m
F Javelin throw   71.53 m


In the U.S. High School boys taking part in Track and Field regularly smash female Olympic records.

https://boysvswomen.com/#/

I'll give you vastly different for weightlifting. Those 100m and marathon numbers don't even look like a stat difference, unless you are playing Rolemaster.

488 kg is about 1.5 times 230kg. So in D&D 3.5, that would be a difference of about +3 Strength, assuming men get no benefits to encumbrance for being, on average, larger. Of course, to assume that's in intrinsic difference, you'd have to think women and men participate in powerlifting at similar rates, which is definitely not true. If you shave off even +1 with that in mind, and assume men get even a relative +1 for lifting, the difference disappears below the level the system acknowledges as a difference.

People want to make a big deal of differences, because of the statistical edge, but in terms of absolute measurments, there isn't a lot there. Men lift more and throw further, and are taller.

Quote from: pawsplay on January 16, 2024, 12:01:34 PM
I'll give you vastly different for weightlifting. Those 100m and marathon numbers don't even look like a stat difference, unless you are playing Rolemaster.

488 kg is about 1.5 times 230kg. So in D&D 3.5, that would be a difference of about +3 Strength, assuming men get no benefits to encumbrance for being, on average, larger. Of course, to assume that's in intrinsic difference, you'd have to think women and men participate in powerlifting at similar rates, which is definitely not true. If you shave off even +1 with that in mind, and assume men get even a relative +1 for lifting, the difference disappears below the level the system acknowledges as a difference.

People want to make a big deal of differences, because of the statistical edge, but in terms of absolute measurments, there isn't a lot there. Men lift more and throw further, and are taller.

Just post a picture of hand-waving, you disingenuous zealot.

"If you just look at massive strength differences as the ability to lift weight, and completely ignore its effect on striking power, grappling, explosive speed, and athleticism why it's practically a rounding error! And there are probably loads of massively strong women who just don't lift, due to patriarchy!"

You absolute clown.

"Massive strength differences" = +1.5 worth of Strength bonus, assuming it's all intrinsic difference, and using pretty much the most favorable possible measurement for men

Quote
M 100 metres   9.63
F 100 metres   10.61

M Marathon   2:06:32
F Marathon   2:23:07

A difference of about 10% and 13%, respectively. This is at the peak of measured performances.

Extrapolating this to a typical movement rate, this would translate into a movement rate of
100 metres: 31.5 feet/round for men versus 29.5 feet/round for women
Marathon: 32 feet/round for men versus 28 feet/round for women

Quote from: pawsplay on January 16, 2024, 03:26:24 PM
"Massive strength differences" = +1.5 worth of Strength bonus, assuming it's all intrinsic difference, and using pretty much the most favorable possible measurement for men

Quote
M 100 metres   9.63
F 100 metres   10.61

M Marathon   2:06:32
F Marathon   2:23:07

A difference of about 10% and 13%, respectively. This is at the peak of measured performances.

Extrapolating this to a typical movement rate, this would translate into a movement rate of
100 metres: 31.5 feet/round for men versus 29.5 feet/round for women
Marathon: 32 feet/round for men versus 28 feet/round for women

Of course another way to look at these numbers is the massive amount of men that can meet or exceed female absolute peaks. 13 year old school boys CRUSH the world's best female Soccer players, high school boys smash Olympic records, women stepping in the boxing or wrestling ring with males get carried out.

You're niggling tiny mechanical advantages that ignore the spirit of the abilities themselves. If, for instance, there was a running mechanic that was D6+ modifier of up to +6, you'd argue 13% speed difference would mean men shouldn't even have a +1 advantage. Whereas in actuality, to represent how a fit amateur male runner will beat a professional woman, you'd need a substantial mod to males.

Let's look at Army fitness standards for the sexes.
https://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/male-2-mile-run-standards/
https://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/female-2-mile-run-standards/

To score max points, a 17-26yr old Male requires a time of 13:00
To score max points, a 17-26yr old Female requires a time of 15:36
To score max points, a 56yr old Male requires a time of 14:42 (19:00 for a 56yr old female btw)

https://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/male-pushup-standards/
https://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/female-pushup-standards/
To score max points, a 27-31yr old Male must do 77 push-ups.
To score max points, a 27-31yr old Female must do 50 push-ups.
To score max points, a 56yr old Male must do 56 push-ups (31 for a 56yr old female btw)

Quote from: Grognard GM on January 16, 2024, 05:50:49 PM
Of course another way to look at these numbers is the massive amount of men that can meet or exceed female absolute peaks. 13 year old school boys CRUSH the world's best female Soccer players,

Citation needed. I know top-level female basketball players routinely destroy male practice squads, men specifically selected to provide a high level challenge.

https://www.sbnation.com/wnba/2019/5/23/18636639/wnba-male-practice-squads

Quote from: pawsplay on January 16, 2024, 06:09:34 PMCitation needed.

https://www.soccerwire.com/news/fc-dallas-academy-u-15-side-defeats-uswnt-5-2-in-scrimmage/

https://www.sportbible.com/football/news-gremio-mens-under-16s-beat-brazil-womens-national-team-6-0-20210113

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/australian-womens-national-team-lose-70-to-team-of-15yearold-boys-a3257266.html

As a bonus, here are current and retired members of 5th-tier (IE farm league) of Wrexam FC taking on retired U.S. female internationals, and beating them 12-0, and that was because the match ended at first to 12.
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/soccer/news/uswnt-wrexham-live-score-updates-highlights-soccer-tournament/g98m9tkvztd2fkqhb6hnpse9

For my fellow Americans: In a sport where 0-1 wins are common, 12-0 with the match being stopped is staggering.

"The US Women's team — which was comprised of former USWNT players, organized by three-time Olympic gold medalist and FIFA Women's World Cup champion Heather O'Reilly and coached by USWNT legend Mia Hamm — struggled in each of their two outings. They gave up 17 goals in the tournament and scored none."

Btw, apologies for being dragged into arguments about demonstrable physical realities.

OP: To realistically stat male vs female the females would need a negative modifier on Str and Con stat rolls. This would represent both the lower average, and the lower ceiling.

Something like Dex is probably fair as even. Men have better raw athletic potential, but women have a flexibility and grace advantage, so they probably equal out in Dex.

Men have more clustered at the bottom and top end of Int than women, but that's probable too granular.

Cha-wise, possibly a small bonus for women in seduction, and men in situations where it represents force of will (leading troops, making someone back down)

ADDENDUM: Obviously a points buy system, with lower female maxima for Str and Con would be the only fair way to represent the differences. So a female could still be that rare Str 16 female, and not have fewer stat points than the males.

Of course another issue is players want to make 18 str females that look like sexy waifs, whereas real world 16 str female power lifters look like farm machinery.

Quote from: Grognard GM on January 16, 2024, 07:14:40 PM
Men have more clustered at the bottom and top end of Int than women, but that's probable too granular.

That's purely an artifact of subscale scatter. And in any case, IQ tests aren't holistically very good at measuring "intelligence," much less the kind measured in RPGs.

Your summary of the soccer matches glosses over important caveats: teams coming out of training, rotating rosters for training, top overseas recruits not playing, etc. Also I didn't find any mentions of a team of 13 year olds, although I gather the under-16 teams could in theory have had some. (I doubt many, I've seen 13 year old boys play soccer and they are miniscule compared to high schoolers). And in any case, out of thousands of scrimmages played across the planet, you are bound to see some surprising upsets, especially in less competitive formats. None of the articles you mentioned implies that anyone felt the women were unqualified, just that under less than stellar conditions, they faced a surprising defeat by elite youth teams. Like, at least one of the articles focused on the under-16 feeder for a professional club. You made it sound like local high schoolers are destroying pros, which is disingenuous. If you played enough scrimmages, I'm sure a group of under-16 girls of high caliber would occasionally beat the women's team; I'm sure with enough scrimmages, the boys might win a match or two against professional adults.

Also, men have, on average, more sexual partners than women, so maybe they should get the bonus to seduction.

Pawsplay, you will turn the tiniest hint of a crumb of evidence into incontrovertible truth when it suits the tenets of your cult, and refute every test, poll, metric, experiment, stat and record that is contrary. 

Your lot demand impossible proof for anything you dislike, but demand others pay lip service to the most magical thinking.

My evidence was for others to see how ridiculous you are, not to convince you.