Why strive for verisimilitude at all? My answer is that it helps to ground the game and adds contrast to the fantasy elements. A dragon is not so terrifying if everyone is as strong as a giant, can fly, and breathe fire.

You can see the problem play out in movies and comic books. They are full of contradictions where character A is demonstrated as unambiguously stronger than character B, and character B stronger than character C. And yet character C defeats character A in a straight up test of strength. A better approach in my view would be for character C to use some clever device to achieve victory. But modern writers appear too lazy for that. Plot armour / plot strength is the soup du jour.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on August 07, 2021, 12:44:18 PM

Quote from: Trond on August 07, 2021, 08:08:52 AM
I may have mentioned this before, but I think we should make a game called DiD: Damsels in Distress. 

Women wouldn't have much need for strength in this one. They would be scream queen NPCs by default. Players would be knights in shining armor in the basic rules, but an expansion would include cowboys saving hapless squaws.

On a more serious note, this genre is almost extinct in movies and comics etc. although I suspect it still exists as a kink in women's pulp literature. I kinda miss it, maybe I'm a hopeless romantic 😀 (as well as incorrigible troll)

This is what's called 'unintended consequences'. I think the damsel-in-distress trope got kind of pushed to the wayside by what was called the 'final girl' trope in 80's horror (where the survivor of the movie was one of the female protagonists).

There was nothing inherently wrong with the 'final girl' trope, and it kinda led to the development of fem characters as full protagonists (example: Ellen Ripley). But then it mutated, cancerously, into the 'stronk independent womyn' bullshit we all know and loathe.

At least, that's my take on it.

I think the damsel in distress actually made a come-back in the 80s. I may be wrong here but i think she's a bit more common in the 80s than 70s. Then she almost disappears in the early 90s. I have fewer gaming examples from the 70s to compare with though, so that may be part of it.

Here's an RPG image I remember growing up in Norway in the 80s

Quote from: mightybrain on August 08, 2021, 09:32:23 AM
Why strive for verisimilitude at all? My answer is that it helps to ground the game and adds contrast to the fantasy elements. A dragon is not so terrifying if everyone is as strong as a giant, can fly, and breathe fire.

You can see the problem play out in movies and comic books. They are full of contradictions where character A is demonstrated as unambiguously stronger than character B, and character B stronger than character C. And yet character C defeats character A in a straight up test of strength. A better approach in my view would be for character C to use some clever device to achieve victory. But modern writers appear too lazy for that. Plot armour / plot strength is the soup du jour.

I don't think anyone was arguing the merits of verisimilitude and keeping things grounded, only that there are exchange rates involved that don't always pan out. Case in point: weapon type vs armor class. While it's a feature I tend to enjoy, few OSR games include it and most OSR referees who are otherwise concerned with verisimilitude decry it. The question is always this: do the pros outweigh the cons? In the case of limiting women PC's attribute scores, for me, it's definitely a no. Not from a referee perspective, and not from a design perspective. Everyone gets the 3d6 straight down, unless we have some other arrangement in mind. If you end up with some Brienne of Tarth type character, so be it.

It all depends on what you're playing. If your game is literally about knights in shining armor, like Pendragon (at least some editions with different stats for women) then it makes perfect sense. It makes sense, although it might be of less importance, if your game is strictly realistic too.

What D&D strength would you give Brienne of Tarth in a world that also includes Gregor Clegane and Khal Drogo?

Quote from: AaronThePedantic on August 08, 2021, 10:40:02 AM

Quote from: mightybrain on August 08, 2021, 09:32:23 AM
Why strive for verisimilitude at all? My answer is that it helps to ground the game and adds contrast to the fantasy elements. A dragon is not so terrifying if everyone is as strong as a giant, can fly, and breathe fire.

You can see the problem play out in movies and comic books. They are full of contradictions where character A is demonstrated as unambiguously stronger than character B, and character B stronger than character C. And yet character C defeats character A in a straight up test of strength. A better approach in my view would be for character C to use some clever device to achieve victory. But modern writers appear too lazy for that. Plot armour / plot strength is the soup du jour.

I don't think anyone was arguing the merits of verisimilitude and keeping things grounded, only that there are exchange rates involved that don't always pan out. Case in point: weapon type vs armor class. While it's a feature I tend to enjoy, few OSR games include it and most OSR referees who are otherwise concerned with verisimilitude decry it. The question is always this: do the pros outweigh the cons? In the case of limiting women PC's attribute scores, for me, it's definitely a no. Not from a referee perspective, and not from a design perspective. Everyone gets the 3d6 straight down, unless we have some other arrangement in mind. If you end up with some Brienne of Tarth type character, so be it.

I don't think anyone is arguing that you should like games with specific amounts of verisimilitude or that apportion different stats based on sex.  You should play whatever you and your players find most fun.  I think the issue is some people are saying that no one should play a game that does apportion stats that way, nor should ay game do so.  Your opinion as to the best ratio of verisimilitude and fun is something you are entitled to.  Is it not something others are also entitled to?

Quote from: SHARK on August 03, 2021, 05:13:59 PM
Greetings!

I have long considered the merits of creating specific attribute caps and modifiers for female characters in the game, especially Human women.

Human Female Attribute Table

Strength: Capped at 14.
Dexterity: +2
Constitution: Capped at 16
Intelligence: --
Wisdom: +1
Charisma: +2

Attribute Caps refer to the female character's ability being capped. No penalties are actually applied to specific attribute dice rolls--they are just resized to the cap if they roll higher, for example. If the female character rolls lower for the particular attribute, the score remains, as there is no actively applied penalty.

Strength: I've read that contrary to current popular culture and brainwashing--even the best, most uber female athletes are only generally as strong as an average fit man. Some studies suggest about a 60% achievement in strength. Even in the highest brackets of competition and achievement--the best and strongest women absolutely pale in comparison to the elite men. There really is no comparison. At best, a strong woman can aspire to be as strong as or moderately stronger than an average, fit adult man.

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.

Dexterity: I think on average, even typical women can often display superior characteristics of coordination and flexibility than men. Higher professional levels, well, women can move their bodies in truly impossible ways compared to men. I've seen Chinese gymnasts bend their bodies in half, and put their ass on top of their head. Jaw-dropping feats of dexterity.

Wisdom: I think while there are many common examples of plentiful stupidity and poor judgment--on balance, women's historical collectivistic tendencies, attraction to herd mentality, deference to authority and being obedient, aversion to risk-taking, lower rates of criminal behavior, combined with hyper-concerns for security, safety, provisions, and resource management, provides women with a general advantage in wisdom compared to men. Then, there is also the hstorical testimony and widespread beliefs in women having different spiritual abilities and enhanced mystical awareness compared to men, across widely different cultures. For thousands of years, everyone seems to agree that women have some kind of special mystical consciousness.

Charisma: Research shows as well as numerous examples of everyday observation, even ordinary women possess significant social advantages compared to men. They talk and express themselves easier, pick up on social cues and non-verbal communication with far greater skill and accuracy than average men. Really beautiful and smooth women can be stellar, and absolutely amazing and mind-bogglingly dangerous as well. Perhaps the funny thing is, so many women can engage in higher socialization while making it look supremely easy, and effortless to do. They engage in such communication and socialization like breathing air.

What do you all think, friends? I have heretofore mostly just gone by the book, and handwaved it all as fantasy. Keeping things simple and straightforward has its attractions, after all. I think though that having some discussion and consideration of such topics has some merit.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Really good stuff. And it is something that is taboo to talk about in games these days, it seems.

People often say it is not necessary because it's a fantasy game. But . . . is it necessary to distinguish an elf from a human, even, then? Or distinguish anything really? You can't handwave everything away because it is a fantasy game.

I'll throw in my two cents.

Strength: advantage male, without a doubt

Dexterity: I'd disagree here and give the advantage to men, here, as well. Men are always faster and stronger. I see what you're saying about flexibility, though. I would label that a sort of edge case, though. Dexterity (like other attributes) can be broken down into different types of dexterity. In fact, there was a book that did this in AD&D2e -- Skills and Powers, I think it was. I'm thinking about boxing, tennis, etc.

Constitution: advantage men

Intelligence: I'd give an advantage to men here, as well. Again, different types of intelligence. Chess (male vs female leauges). Inventors. It is said that men reach the extremes of bell curve (both ends) while women cluster more to the middle. So, I could see men being able to reach the highest levels of magic in a fantasy game, whereas women might be capped like some demihumans.

Wisdom: I'd give the advantage to men, here, for sure. Men are more rational decision-makers, less emotional decision-makers. Men have the disposition to do philosophy and deal with other abstract thought. Plato. Socrates. etc. Also #selfiedeaths. I think women are leading there.

Charisma: I would give the advantage to women here overall, but . . . when it comes to leading men . . . as Charisma affects (# of followers), I'd give the advantage to men for sure. Men follow men, not women.

Quote from: 1989 on August 08, 2021, 01:08:19 PM
Really good stuff. And it is something that is taboo to talk about in games these days, it seems.

People often say it is not necessary because it's a fantasy game. But . . . is it necessary to distinguish an elf from a human, even, then? Or distinguish anything really? You can't handwave everything away because it is a fantasy game.

This is absolutely the direction 5e is headed. Arguably, they are already there.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on August 08, 2021, 12:54:52 PM

Quote from: AaronThePedantic on August 08, 2021, 10:40:02 AM

Quote from: mightybrain on August 08, 2021, 09:32:23 AM
Why strive for verisimilitude at all? My answer is that it helps to ground the game and adds contrast to the fantasy elements. A dragon is not so terrifying if everyone is as strong as a giant, can fly, and breathe fire.

You can see the problem play out in movies and comic books. They are full of contradictions where character A is demonstrated as unambiguously stronger than character B, and character B stronger than character C. And yet character C defeats character A in a straight up test of strength. A better approach in my view would be for character C to use some clever device to achieve victory. But modern writers appear too lazy for that. Plot armour / plot strength is the soup du jour.

I don't think anyone was arguing the merits of verisimilitude and keeping things grounded, only that there are exchange rates involved that don't always pan out. Case in point: weapon type vs armor class. While it's a feature I tend to enjoy, few OSR games include it and most OSR referees who are otherwise concerned with verisimilitude decry it. The question is always this: do the pros outweigh the cons? In the case of limiting women PC's attribute scores, for me, it's definitely a no. Not from a referee perspective, and not from a design perspective. Everyone gets the 3d6 straight down, unless we have some other arrangement in mind. If you end up with some Brienne of Tarth type character, so be it.

I don't think anyone is arguing that you should like games with specific amounts of verisimilitude or that apportion different stats based on sex.  You should play whatever you and your players find most fun.  I think the issue is some people are saying that no one should play a game that does apportion stats that way, nor should ay game do so.  Your opinion as to the best ratio of verisimilitude and fun is something you are entitled to.  Is it not something others are also entitled to?

Anything people do at their table is the business of the DM and the players, not me or anyone else. A lot of the arguments stem from moral imperatives, but I'm not into the Jack Thompson school of the "harmful effects of games." MYFAROG is full of repugnant design IMO, but IDGAF if people buy it or play it. Consenting adults can do what they like at the table, no harm done.

Quote from: 1989 on August 08, 2021, 01:08:19 PM

Quote from: SHARK on August 03, 2021, 05:13:59 PM
Greetings!

I have long considered the merits of creating specific attribute caps and modifiers for female characters in the game, especially Human women.

Human Female Attribute Table

Strength: Capped at 14.
Dexterity: +2
Constitution: Capped at 16
Intelligence: --
Wisdom: +1
Charisma: +2

Attribute Caps refer to the female character's ability being capped. No penalties are actually applied to specific attribute dice rolls--they are just resized to the cap if they roll higher, for example. If the female character rolls lower for the particular attribute, the score remains, as there is no actively applied penalty.

Strength: I've read that contrary to current popular culture and brainwashing--even the best, most uber female athletes are only generally as strong as an average fit man. Some studies suggest about a 60% achievement in strength. Even in the highest brackets of competition and achievement--the best and strongest women absolutely pale in comparison to the elite men. There really is no comparison. At best, a strong woman can aspire to be as strong as or moderately stronger than an average, fit adult man.

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.

Dexterity: I think on average, even typical women can often display superior characteristics of coordination and flexibility than men. Higher professional levels, well, women can move their bodies in truly impossible ways compared to men. I've seen Chinese gymnasts bend their bodies in half, and put their ass on top of their head. Jaw-dropping feats of dexterity.

Wisdom: I think while there are many common examples of plentiful stupidity and poor judgment--on balance, women's historical collectivistic tendencies, attraction to herd mentality, deference to authority and being obedient, aversion to risk-taking, lower rates of criminal behavior, combined with hyper-concerns for security, safety, provisions, and resource management, provides women with a general advantage in wisdom compared to men. Then, there is also the hstorical testimony and widespread beliefs in women having different spiritual abilities and enhanced mystical awareness compared to men, across widely different cultures. For thousands of years, everyone seems to agree that women have some kind of special mystical consciousness.

Charisma: Research shows as well as numerous examples of everyday observation, even ordinary women possess significant social advantages compared to men. They talk and express themselves easier, pick up on social cues and non-verbal communication with far greater skill and accuracy than average men. Really beautiful and smooth women can be stellar, and absolutely amazing and mind-bogglingly dangerous as well. Perhaps the funny thing is, so many women can engage in higher socialization while making it look supremely easy, and effortless to do. They engage in such communication and socialization like breathing air.

What do you all think, friends? I have heretofore mostly just gone by the book, and handwaved it all as fantasy. Keeping things simple and straightforward has its attractions, after all. I think though that having some discussion and consideration of such topics has some merit.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Really good stuff. And it is something that is taboo to talk about in games these days, it seems.

People often say it is not necessary because it's a fantasy game. But . . . is it necessary to distinguish an elf from a human, even, then? Or distinguish anything really? You can't handwave everything away because it is a fantasy game.

I'll throw in my two cents.

Strength: advantage male, without a doubt

Dexterity: I'd disagree here and give the advantage to men, here, as well. Men are always faster and stronger. I see what you're saying about flexibility, though. I would label that a sort of edge case, though. Dexterity (like other attributes) can be broken down into different types of dexterity. In fact, there was a book that did this in AD&D2e -- Skills and Powers, I think it was. I'm thinking about boxing, tennis, etc.

Constitution: advantage men

Intelligence: I'd give an advantage to men here, as well. Again, different types of intelligence. Chess (male vs female leauges). Inventors. It is said that men reach the extremes of bell curve (both ends) while women cluster more to the middle. So, I could see men being able to reach the highest levels of magic in a fantasy game, whereas women might be capped like some demihumans.

Wisdom: I'd give the advantage to men, here, for sure. Men are more rational decision-makers, less emotional decision-makers. Men have the disposition to do philosophy and deal with other abstract thought. Plato. Socrates. etc. Also #selfiedeaths. I think women are leading there.

Charisma: I would give the advantage to women here overall, but . . . when it comes to leading men . . . as Charisma affects (# of followers), I'd give the advantage to men for sure. Men follow men, not women.

Essentially, make women PCs suck for realism's sake. Why stop there? Why not add modifiers to your real world games based on ethnic groups based on research? Or, are male/female the only dividing lines you're interested in among humans?

The reason we differentiate between humans, elves, dwarves, etc is for archetypal accentuation. Maybe you want to do the same between male/female, but from a design perspective, you'd want to make it so that there is some kind of incentive. Something GOOD about being women PCs. And for those of us who don't have any interest in using sex appeal or damsel in distress stuff, you ain't really got shit to offer with what's being thrown down.

The thing Human always had to offer was higher levels, quicker levels, class options, etc. The others had more up front benefits, but slower growth, class restrictions, and level caps. See what I mean? You have to make the choice appealing and meaningful.

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 >>

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. (Not you as a person, the idea).

Your table might not need female PCs, but mine often do.

Quote from: SHARK on August 03, 2021, 05:13:59 PM
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 would disagree with this assessment. Women outlive men statistically. I think what you're looking at here is survivorship bias. Woman are plagued with illnesses and diseases as they age where men simply die. Just look at Covid, your survival rate was almost 20% higher as a woman.

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.