Quote from: Zenoguy3 on February 22, 2024, 10:43:59 AM
I think you're letting paws off way to easliy. His main contention is that the differences between men's and women's lifting are small enough to be washed out in the mechanics of the game. My retort is that that's laughable. The very fact that there are separate categories for men's and women's lifting, and that the numbers are so disparate between, whether they be standards, records, or any other kind of stat.

Its more that I feel citing minimum standards is a weak argument and too easy to deflect from with "well, that's just the minimum; SOME women could be stronger."

Which is why I instead went to record-holders... i.e. the upper limits of what is currently possible for humans.

The fact that, within the same weight category (i.e. 81kg male vs. 81kg female) the men's record is consistently 130% of the women's record for Clean & Jerk tells you everything you need to know about relative strength in way paws can't refute nearly so easily.

It also shuts down the "well, its only because women are smaller; if they were large like Brianne of Tarth they could lift as much."

No they can't.

The records prove it.

Men of the same weight as women absolutely outclass women in strength (it's a very consistent across weight classes at 130%).

Throwing in that men are, on average, larger than women, just skews the difference even more because the average man is about 33% larger than the average women... so in general its more like men vs. women in the same percentile range for size (ex. a man at the upper 10% range for men vs. a woman in the upper 10% range for women) are lifting c. 175% what the woman does.

Now, if we're building rather than rolling characters you could decide you're playing a women in the upper reaches of size for women... I recall one woman weightlifter (who looked like a tank) from my research who was 6'1" and 230 lb.; and she could be stronger than some men due to her size... but once she's competing against a male weightlifter who's 180 lb. or more... she'll be losing consistently because that's when the man's power-to-weight ratio advantage will overcome her raw size advantage.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 22, 2024, 02:04:30 PM
Its more that I feel citing minimum standards is a weak argument and too easy to deflect from with "well, that's just the minimum; SOME women could be stronger."

Which is why I instead went to record-holders... i.e. the upper limits of what is currently possible for humans.

Not unfair. Which is why brought up that he claims to have knowledge of women lifting 50% more than the current record.

Quote from: Zenoguy3 on February 22, 2024, 03:01:48 AM

Quote from: pawsplay on February 21, 2024, 09:17:14 PM
Literally, women are lifting high four hundreds over their heads without mechanical assistance, which AD&D says is 18/100.

(emphasis mine)

Also, in regards to the margin I calculated over the existing WR, I failed to notice you claimed not only four hundred but high four hundreds. Being charitable and assuming you mean 460, you're only claiming to have personal knowledge of multiple women exceeding the current record by 53%.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 21, 2024, 09:17:14 PM
I literally gave you names.

Names, dates, and weights would be nice.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 16, 2024, 02:40:21 PM...

Good thoughts Chris24601. High level I agree that the resolution of D&D's attributes are too broad generally to represent the nuances of difference between male & female characters in most cases. That is why I don't really find the discussion over attributes interesting or engaging (+ bad faith arguments + offtopic veering into modern sports discussion).

However, in actual play rarely do I see attributes utilized directly. Almost all usage in D&D (at least versions I am familiar with) utilize attributes as part of a derived value, which can include any number of modifiers that exist in the game narrative. This gives as much resolution as you want for the purposes of gameplay without needing to invent a slew of new attributes. For example, Elven ability to find secret doors doesn't require adding a "Finding secret doors" attribute. I think this also allows for more appropriate discretion in application of bonuses, that a numerical ranking doesn't provide.

If you simply apply a Size modifier to men, I won't argue it's inaccurate. It's probably pointless, though, except in games with randomly determined size.

If you want to apply about a +2 difference in Strength between men and women, on a D&D level scale, I won't argue it's inaccurate. It's probably pointless, though, except in games with randomly determined Size. And it's difficult to argue the full value of the difference is intrinsic; there are many obvious reasons to assume it's partly a matter of behavior and culture. But if you think your game system would benefit from arguing there is about a +1 or so, apart from Size, knock yourself out. But both men and woman have achieved lifting efforts way outside any normal person's range, so at that scale, both men and women are going to hit maximal values. You could make it part of a template for something like GURPS, which is open-ended, but then again, it makes no difference at all in points if people just subtract out that difference when they are building their character anyway.

AD&D can't even justify the gender differences originally present, and they were eventually discarded as pointless anyway. In a point-based game, any such difference is just a suggestion, it's utterly without purpose as far as limiting characters.

I can name one game system where the difference in scale might be measurable, and which takes Size into account at a scale that registers in the game, and where a Strength modifier might be justifiable. It's the classic version of Runequest and its spin-off games. You could suggest men and women roll different numbers for Size. If you squint, you might be able to justify a point or two difference in raw Strength between human men and women.

A quick rundown of how Strength difference might be represented in some popular systems:
GURPS: A numerical difference is slightly more justifiable than for AD&D, but makes no difference at all in character generation, since you can just make the final numbers whatever you want.
Savage Worlds: No measurable difference. Men are more likely to have the Brawny Edge.
Mutants & Masterminds: No measurable difference at this scale, even at the extremes. All top power lifters rate Strength 3. World record-breakers, men and women, rate Strength 4, or perhaps they have the Extreme Effort Advantage.
Marvel FASERIP: No significant differences at the scale it uses. Perhaps Excellent Strength is more common among men.
DC Heroes: No significant differences. Similar scale to M&M.
Vampire: The Masequerade: Same scale as DC Heroes, 1 to 5. The distribution is different for men and women, but all top performing men and women would rate Strength 5.
AD&D: Maybe a two point difference, but men and women break the top of the scale established for 18/100. Certainly overall power relative to a halfling seems more significant.
Champions: Maybe if you want to reflect lifting strength specifically, a couple of points difference. But of course a player can set whatever value you want, so this would only effect generic NPCs.

Do this exercise again and again, and you will find it's a wash. Either the scale isn't fine enough, or the high values are open-ended, or players can set whatever value they want anyway.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 22, 2024, 06:35:01 PM
If you simply apply a Size modifier to men, I won't argue it's inaccurate. It's probably pointless, though, except in games with randomly determined size.

If you want to apply about a +2 difference in Strength between men and women, on a D&D level scale, I won't argue it's inaccurate.

That's a pretty stark about face from:

Quote from: pawsplay on February 21, 2024, 09:17:14 PM
Men do definitely have larger numbers, but the disparity is not enough to push it outside the ranges found in any RPG I can think of.

Which is progress, and appreciated.

But then we have

Quote from: pawsplay on February 22, 2024, 06:35:01 PM
AD&D: Maybe a two point difference, but men and women break the top of the scale established for 18/100.

If I'm reading this right, a Str of 18/100 would enable a character to overhead press a full 480lbs. This exceeds the record I referenced previously by a full 60%, and also exceeds the men's world record of 430 set by Larry Wheels on August 23, 2018, which would put him in the range of 18/91-99. So unless you can give a reference for these record shattering feats, you still seem to be blatantly misinformed.

Quote from: Zenoguy3 on February 22, 2024, 08:42:29 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on February 22, 2024, 06:35:01 PM
AD&D: Maybe a two point difference, but men and women break the top of the scale established for 18/100.

If I'm reading this right, a Str of 18/100 would enable a character to overhead press a full 480lbs. This exceeds the record I referenced previously by a full 60%, and also exceeds the men's world record of 430 set by Larry Wheels on August 23, 2018, which would put him in the range of 18/91-99. So unless you can give a reference for these record shattering feats, you still seem to be blatantly misinformed.

The description of "Maximum Press" from the AD&D2 PH reads:

QuoteMaximum Press is the heaviest weight a character can pick up and lift over his head. A character cannot walk more than a few steps this way. No human or humanoid creature without exceptional Strength can lift more than twice his body weight over his head. In 1987, the world record for lifting a weight overhead in a single move was 465 pounds. A heroic fighter with Strength 18/00 (see Table 1) can lift up to 480 pounds the same way and he can hold it overhead for a longer time!

I'm not clear from the description, but the "in a single move" and the stated record sounds like what is considered "snatch" rather than "press" in weightlifting parlance. If it is a snatch, then 480 pounds has now been exceeded by a man (Lasha Talakhadze with 496 pounds), but not by a woman.

I'm not sure what pawsplay was interpreting, but it might be different material. In 1E AD&D, it says that 18 Strength means that a character can lift 180 pounds over his or her head in a military press, but it doesn't specify what an 18/00 Strength can press.

Quote from: jhkim on February 22, 2024, 10:02:35 PM
I'm not clear from the description, but the "in a single move" and the stated record sounds like what is considered "snatch" rather than "press" in weightlifting parlance. If it is a snatch, then 480 pounds has now been exceeded by a man (Lasha Talakhadze with 496 pounds), but not by a woman.

Fair. I don't know anything about weightlifting, I was just going off the lift paws was talking about. Looking at the description of not being able to take more than a few steps with that weight, I think either the snatch or the clean and jerk would be reasonable analogs. According to the Internation Weightlifting Federation, world record women's clean and jerk is 187kg (412lbs) by Li Wenwen on April 25, 2021, so paws' saying women breaking 400lbs was correct, but certainly not high 400s and still not to 18/100. And to say the difference between that and the men's record of 267 kg (588 lbs) by TALAKHADZE Lasha on Oct 02, 1993, (same source) a 40% difference, is deminimus is still laughable.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 22, 2024, 06:35:01 PM
And it's difficult to argue the full value of the difference is intrinsic; there are many obvious reasons to assume it's partly a matter of behavior and culture.

No, if you weren't so busy pushing an agenda you'd see I already provided evidence that the intrinsic difference between the upper ranges of strength for men and women who weigh the same is consistently, regardless of the specific weight chosen, that men lift about 130% more than women do in the clean and jerk (or to put it another way, the best woman weightlifter can only manage 77% of the best man of the same weight).

When multiple men and women competitors across a broad spectrum of weight classes provide such consistent results, that rules out just about every factor EXCEPT the intrinsic difference between the physiology of men and women as the reason.

Greetings!

Several people have referenced Halflings in D&D. Halfling penalties for Strength are cosmetic at best. It is ridiculous that a 4 feet tall humanoid that weighs roughly 100 pounds can have a Strength anywhere near what a Human can have. It is laughable.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Zenoguy3 on February 22, 2024, 11:23:30 AM

Quote from: SHARK on February 22, 2024, 08:18:10 AM
Face the deep, harsh truth--Men are far stronger and superior to women.

(emphasis mine)

Careful with that language. So far, paws has been pretty good about merely stating blatant falsehoods, rather than resorting to sladerous ad hominem accusations. He's got questions to answer, don't give him an excuse to deflect them.

Greetings!

*Laughing* Ahh, yes. Very true, Zenoguy 3. Good point! Keep that grill going properly!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on February 23, 2024, 08:19:58 AM
Several people have referenced Halflings in D&D. Halfling penalties for Strength are cosmetic at best. It is ridiculous that a 4 feet tall humanoid that weighs roughly 100 pounds can have a Strength anywhere near what a Human can have. It is laughable.

That's exactly the point. No one has raised a stink about halflings getting only -1 Strength in Gygax's AD&D.

It suggests that AD&D isn't a realistic system, but rather one that deliberately ignores the effect of size, such that a halfling can fight off an adult human with little penalty, and a human can fight off a giant or dragon.

Quote from: jhkim on February 23, 2024, 01:42:27 PM

Quote from: SHARK on February 23, 2024, 08:19:58 AM
Several people have referenced Halflings in D&D. Halfling penalties for Strength are cosmetic at best. It is ridiculous that a 4 feet tall humanoid that weighs roughly 100 pounds can have a Strength anywhere near what a Human can have. It is laughable.

That's exactly the point. No one has raised a stink about halflings getting only -1 Strength in Gygax's AD&D.

It suggests that AD&D isn't a realistic system, but rather one that deliberately ignores the effect of size, such that a halfling can fight off an adult human with little penalty, and a human can fight off a giant or dragon.

So stop arguing for females having no penalty, and instead argue that it should be a little one.

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 23, 2024, 02:42:36 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 23, 2024, 01:42:27 PM

Quote from: SHARK on February 23, 2024, 08:19:58 AM
Several people have referenced Halflings in D&D. Halfling penalties for Strength are cosmetic at best. It is ridiculous that a 4 feet tall humanoid that weighs roughly 100 pounds can have a Strength anywhere near what a Human can have. It is laughable.

That's exactly the point. No one has raised a stink about halflings getting only -1 Strength in Gygax's AD&D.

It suggests that AD&D isn't a realistic system, but rather one that deliberately ignores the effect of size, such that a halfling can fight off an adult human with little penalty, and a human can fight off a giant or dragon.

So stop arguing for females having no penalty, and instead argue that it should be a little one.

If a male halfling is -1 Strength, then if one is consistent, the penalty for human female should be less than 0.5 and thus rounded to zero. The same goes for male elves -- who are on average a foot shorter and 75 pounds lighter than male humans in 1E.

I've said before that in a more realistic system, like HarnMaster, adjustments are reasonable - but the same system also means a human male can't possibly take on a 1500 pound polar bear, let alone a ten-ton dragon.

Quote from: jhkim on February 23, 2024, 05:10:57 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 23, 2024, 02:42:36 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 23, 2024, 01:42:27 PM

Quote from: SHARK on February 23, 2024, 08:19:58 AM
Several people have referenced Halflings in D&D. Halfling penalties for Strength are cosmetic at best. It is ridiculous that a 4 feet tall humanoid that weighs roughly 100 pounds can have a Strength anywhere near what a Human can have. It is laughable.

That's exactly the point. No one has raised a stink about halflings getting only -1 Strength in Gygax's AD&D.

It suggests that AD&D isn't a realistic system, but rather one that deliberately ignores the effect of size, such that a halfling can fight off an adult human with little penalty, and a human can fight off a giant or dragon.

So stop arguing for females having no penalty, and instead argue that it should be a little one.

If a male halfling is -1 Strength, then if one is consistent, the penalty for human female should be less than 0.5 and thus rounded to zero. The same goes for male elves -- who are on average a foot shorter and 75 pounds lighter than male humans in 1E.

So male Elves should be -1 STR, and female Halflings and Elves should be -2 STR, gotcha.

Should they? I mean Strenght attribute is not the same thing as Strength as real thing I would say.
For instance in terms of D&D it usually influences precision of melee attacks.

Which in some cases - let's say axes have a lot of sense, but let's say with spear... bit less. (That's why spear is traditionally weapon for women - if they need to have one).
So while not as much as other attributes, if we look at what Strength influences in actual game, even it, simplest of attributes can be bitof hodgepodge.