Quote from: Chris24601 on August 08, 2021, 03:33:25 PM

Quote from: AaronThePedantic on August 08, 2021, 02:46:30 PM

Quote from: 1989 on August 08, 2021, 02:27:53 PM
Well, who said we need women PCs? Are we playing fantastic medieval wargames, here? Killing things with swords in plate armour? This is not where women excel.

Vampire: The Masquerade is that way >>

Because women tend to like playing as women characters. Not always, but often. I've had many women play at my table and very, very rarely have they had interest in playing men. Come to think of it, I can only think of men, trans men, and nonbinary people playing men at my table. I know OF women who have played as men though.

Imagine always having to play a woman because men are either off limits, socially prohibited from enjoyable activities, or mechanically penalized to be sub par. I'd imagine that would get annoying.

Your solution is "switch genres?" Fuck off with that.

Pretty much. There are few of what I call "One True Wayist" assholes here on the forums, but you learn to ignore them.

My game has PC dragons, giants and pixies, so the difference between human levels of strength is barely a blip on the scale you need to measure those differences. While there's zero mechanical enforcement, I tend to design NPCs along the lines that men are better at physical combat and women are better at magic, particularly magic that requires intuition or spiritual connection (a not uncommon belief in the ancient world).

One issue too is that the attribute definitions of many systems are skewed towards things men are traditionally stronger at. Ex. If Dexterity measured mostly flexibility and fine motor control instead of reaction time then women might have a slight edge. If Constitution measured ability to endure high-G flight manuvers and ability to function on minimal sleep instead of capacity to absorb blunt physical trauma then women might have an edge there too. If there was a stat that measured one's ability to multitask in a chaotic environment women would have a definitive edge.

Basically, a lot of the "men should have better stats" comes down to which parts of a rather broad category they're focused on (trying to define a human being by just six stats is ludicrous without each being a broad average of numerous subtraits).

It also really seems to overlook a fundamental precept of the genre; the PC's aren't Joe and Jane Average working on a farm in the back country. They are exceptional larger than life people (just having 1 level of fighter means you're a veteran warrior, not some wet behind the ears farmboy) and that includes adventurers who are women.

Level 1 Fighting Man. Not Level 1 Fighter. Gygax went woke sometime around 1977. 

Quote from: SHARK on August 03, 2021, 05:13:59 PM
Constitution: Capped at 16

Constitution: Aside from women's ability to endure childbirth, and resist long-term, lethal illnesses, it seems that they are distinctly and consistently weaker than men throughout life in a plethora of ways, dealing with Constitution. Women have huge rates of chronic injuries compared ro men. Throughout life, women also become plagued by debilitating non-lethal illnesses and diseases at a significantly higher rate than men. Women routinely experience muscle, joint, and bone problems, again, at a significantly higher rate than men.

I'd quibble with this analysis a little, SHARK. If CON is a measurement of the ability to withstand/resist acute health events, then your argument suggests that human females should not be capped - they endure longer, though they accumulate CON penalties over time. Human males, on the other hand, are statistically more likely to succumb to acute events like heart attacks. Men die younger than women, on average: another sign of "shorter runway" on CON. If I remember right, this even holds down to the science of muscular and skeletal differences - women in general can endure for longer durations but can't burst perform the way men can. I think the strongest argument for higher CON in human men is the ability to burst through extraordinary physical feats - Hell Week for SEALs, for example. But that might be better modeled/covered by STR in the STR/DEX/CON/WIS/INT/CHA model?

Not sure how, or what lift a person's strength determines assuming dungeons and dragons.  What lift, and how much, can a 20 strength person lift?

Quote from: oggsmash on August 08, 2021, 04:18:24 PM
Not sure how, or what lift a person's strength determines assuming dungeons and dragons.  What lift, and how much, can a 20 strength person lift?

I don't recall the lift value, but a 20 Strength has a carrying capacity of 300 lbs. before any Encumbrance penalty kicks in.

Quote from: HappyDaze on August 08, 2021, 06:07:36 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on August 08, 2021, 04:18:24 PM
Not sure how, or what lift a person's strength determines assuming dungeons and dragons.  What lift, and how much, can a 20 strength person lift?

I don't recall the lift value, but a 20 Strength has a carrying capacity of 300 lbs. before any Encumbrance penalty kicks in.

   That seems really an odd way to give some sort of yard stick to strength as compared to the real world I think.  Honestly, I think that kind of breaks with reality more than men and women being the same strength.  At least with some sort of one time lift, we can get an idea that maybe translates over a bit better to "combat" strength.   I do chuckle at the sight of a person running around carrying 300 pounds as if they are in a t shirt and shorts though.

   Edited to add: I saw something online where you can lift double your carry capacity...that also seems odd, as it does not say how you are lifting the load (I remember gygax referenced the military press), and it seems odd the most you could lift would be double what you could run about carrying that does not hinder you at all.

Quote from: oggsmash on August 08, 2021, 06:11:00 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on August 08, 2021, 06:07:36 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on August 08, 2021, 04:18:24 PM
Not sure how, or what lift a person's strength determines assuming dungeons and dragons.  What lift, and how much, can a 20 strength person lift?

I don't recall the lift value, but a 20 Strength has a carrying capacity of 300 lbs. before any Encumbrance penalty kicks in.

   That seems really an odd way to give some sort of yard stick to strength as compared to the real world I think.  Honestly, I think that kind of breaks with reality more than men and women being the same strength.  At least with some sort of one time lift, we can get an idea that maybe translates over a bit better to "combat" strength.   I do chuckle at the sight of a person running around carrying 300 pounds as if they are in a t shirt and shorts though.

   Edited to add: I saw something online where you can lift double your carry capacity...that also seems odd, as it does not say how you are lifting the load (I remember gygax referenced the military press), and it seems odd the most you could lift would be double what you could run about carrying that does not hinder you at all.

What can I say,? I think the 5e Encumbrance rules are crap too.

I would not cap nor modify based on either gender for human PCs. Why?

1) Even "realistic" RPGs are cinematic fantasies. Seriously, we play games where people are stabbed for max damage by swords and shrug it off.

2) PCs are personal fantasies and everyone has their view on the pros/cons of gendered traits. AKA, "women are dextrous" or "women are wise" isn't a universal view, but it might be a personal view.

3) Gender caps/mods are a political shithole that adds nothing to my game table except arguments that invoke my boot up somebody's ass.

However, I most certainly cap AND modify non-human races as I use humans as the baseline. For me, its incredibly important for non-humans to be...non-human.

But would I make gendered mods for non-humans?

Perhaps, but only if there was significant gender differences in that setting - let's say elves in the setting only have goddesses so only females can be clerics, or let's say male orcs are oversized brutes whereas female orcs are slight and cunning.

Quote from: oggsmash on August 08, 2021, 04:18:24 PM
Not sure how, or what lift a person's strength determines assuming dungeons and dragons.  What lift, and how much, can a 20 strength person lift?

5e defines it as Strength x 30, so 600 lbs, which is quite close to the world record (~580 lbs) for the clean and jerk.

1st edition defined strength in terms of a military press but I don't remember it being defined above 18/00. With the percentile amount, the total you could lift was related to your character's weight.

In the rules, Dex for the most part, is the archery stat. We have just had the Olympics so we have up to date data on the differences between the best male and female human archers. The difference is that there is no measurable difference. Although the men's and women's events are separated, if you take the final scores of Mete Gazoz and San An, and put them head to head, it would have been a draw.

Quote from: mightybrain on August 08, 2021, 06:17:16 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on August 08, 2021, 04:18:24 PM
Not sure how, or what lift a person's strength determines assuming dungeons and dragons.  What lift, and how much, can a 20 strength person lift?

5e defines it as Strength x 30, so 600 lbs, which is quite close to the world record (~580 lbs) for the clean and jerk.

1st edition defined strength in terms of a military press but I don't remember it being defined above 18/00. With the percentile amount, the total you could lift was related to your character's weight.

  clean and jerk is not a great measure of strength though, as compared to power executed through technique (this was why GG used the military press I think).  The percentile (apologies I am trying to remember this from memory) had a funky formula where I want to say was 1 pound per point 1-50, 4 pounds per point 51-90, and 8 pounds per point 91-00.  Add in the 180 for 18 strength and you have the character's military press.   I think the weight rule was no humanoid could lift 2x their bodyweight over head.   I guess if the new rules mean clean and jerk, it is sort of consistent with real world numbers, but they do not specify at all, and saying most lifted, does not imply overhead lifting and seems to point more to a deadlift.   So I guess they are vague in a way that only matters if I go looking for silly things like a max military press. 

Quote from: oggsmash on August 08, 2021, 06:30:46 PM
I guess if the new rules mean clean and jerk, it is sort of consistent with real world numbers, but they do not specify at all, and saying most lifted, does not imply overhead lifting and seems to point more to a deadlift.

Earlier editions explicitly stated lifting above the head. I think it was only in 5th edition that this language changed. But it makes sense, because while you can deadlift a lot more weight than you can lift above your head, you are not so able to move around while doing so.

The military press got dropped as an Olympic event because competitors found a way to "press" more weight by arching their back and bouncing. It was too hard to adjudicate so they switched to the clean and jerk. But as it turned out, there wasn't that much difference in the weights lifted between those two events, so they are roughly comparable.

Quote from: mightybrain on August 08, 2021, 06:58:48 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on August 08, 2021, 06:30:46 PM
I guess if the new rules mean clean and jerk, it is sort of consistent with real world numbers, but they do not specify at all, and saying most lifted, does not imply overhead lifting and seems to point more to a deadlift.

Earlier editions explicitly stated lifting above the head. I think it was only in 5th edition that this language changed. But it makes sense, because while you can deadlift a lot more weight than you can lift above your head, you are not so able to move around while doing so.

The military press got dropped as an Olympic event because competitors found a way to "press" more weight by arching their back and bouncing. It was too hard to adjudicate so they switched to the clean and jerk. But as it turned out, there wasn't that much difference in the weights lifted between those two events, so they are roughly comparable.

     I thought they just dropped the press, and the clean and jerk was always there.  In any event, a strict standing press is not so comparable to a clean and jerk, and in the lighter weight classes it is more exaggerated.   But for now I can just go with the clean and jerk.    The problem is, a 10 strength is a 300 pound clean and jerk (or press, for this example matters little), which is WAAAY beyond what an average human can manage.  A 300 pound deadlift though....an average person can do that (assuming an active life with a little physical labor and exercise), but a clean and jerk or standing press?  No fucking way.

Quote from: oggsmash on August 08, 2021, 07:08:09 PM
     I thought they just dropped the press, and the clean and jerk was always there.

You're probably right. I remember looking at the lifting records and the numbers seemed similar but maybe it was the snatch event I was comparing.

The average D&D human is a lot stronger than the average man in the real world.

Quote from: mightybrain on August 08, 2021, 07:21:42 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on August 08, 2021, 07:08:09 PM
     I thought they just dropped the press, and the clean and jerk was always there.

You're probably right. I remember looking at the lifting records and the numbers seemed similar but maybe it was the snatch event I was comparing.

The average D&D human is a lot stronger than the average man in the real world.

   Well, this is the only edition where that is the case, regarding average man strength.   I think the people who wrote the 5th edition just handwaved all the strength stuff around lifting and encumbrance and had absolutely zero real life experience with lifting, carrying shit, or actually knowing any strong people.

Quote from: oggsmash on August 08, 2021, 07:08:09 PM

Quote from: mightybrain on August 08, 2021, 06:58:48 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on August 08, 2021, 06:30:46 PM
I guess if the new rules mean clean and jerk, it is sort of consistent with real world numbers, but they do not specify at all, and saying most lifted, does not imply overhead lifting and seems to point more to a deadlift.

Earlier editions explicitly stated lifting above the head. I think it was only in 5th edition that this language changed. But it makes sense, because while you can deadlift a lot more weight than you can lift above your head, you are not so able to move around while doing so.

The military press got dropped as an Olympic event because competitors found a way to "press" more weight by arching their back and bouncing. It was too hard to adjudicate so they switched to the clean and jerk. But as it turned out, there wasn't that much difference in the weights lifted between those two events, so they are roughly comparable.

     I thought they just dropped the press, and the clean and jerk was always there.  In any event, a strict standing press is not so comparable to a clean and jerk, and in the lighter weight classes it is more exaggerated.   But for now I can just go with the clean and jerk.    The problem is, a 10 strength is a 300 pound clean and jerk (or press, for this example matters little), which is WAAAY beyond what an average human can manage.  A 300 pound deadlift though....an average person can do that (assuming an active life with a little physical labor and exercise), but a clean and jerk or standing press?  No fucking way.

Muscular strength is different in a magic-rich environment. However, females gain comparatively more (the female body just channels the magic a bit better) and it ends up putting them exactly equal to males despite a difference in body size...

Everyone knows this.