Quote from: Aglondir;1095657What is Reedom?

Not poking fun, I make typos all the time. I'm assuming you meant Freedom, but I don't understand how your proposed rules are liberating, or what they are liberating the players from. Or am I reading too much into the title?

I assumed it was an attempt to combine the words freedom and realism to be cheeky.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1095658Yes, and manipulate them as a marketing tool.

REEEE! is a meme. Frequently associated with the Twitter outrage mobs.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/reeeeeee

But it turns out it wasn't something even that vaguely clever... just more recycled social media 'humor'

You know I often treated female pcs as the exception to the rule instead of the general population.  Like the lady knight who has +4 strength mod, but isn't body builder muscular (don't get me wrong the knight has some meat on her bones) would know how to use her strength instead of using raw physical force.  While most women generally go for more traditional roles the knight sticks out because inspite of the physical flaws women have in combative fields this woman actually knows how to handle it.  

Like wise I had a entire army of amazons who fight just as good as men because they are eldritch rites they perform to give them that ability which explains why they have a army instead of one rare woman who can tough it out with the best of them.

ThePoxBox, I think I may be reading your modifications incorrectly. Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma seem to come out lower for female humans?

I'm with the pack, not really seeing the need, but I'll go along with you, and comment.


Strength I can see a variation for under realism, as there is fair strong evidence to support that the strongest women are weaker than the strongest men. Based on the 2018 Olympics the top women lifted a combined 331kg, vs 478kg for the top man, or about 70% or a max of 13. If you must be "realistic" then 1d8+1d4+1? That centers the average at 6-10, with a max of 13, vs 9-12 max of 18 which places a woman's STR both average and max at 70% of a man, while maintaining 3 as a minimum.

Assuming your fantasy world restricts women's education as many of our own did / does and you assume Wisdom = education, I can see altering that. Although really in that case then, WIS should be based on culture rather than gender. Odds are pretty good a wealthy merchants daughter, or female noble would typically get a better education than any peasant, or nomad male or female.
You have given females a slightly higher average, but lower max what is the reasoning for that?

Why even mess with INT, I'm not aware of anything that credibly shows a significant difference between genders. Again you have given a slightly better average but lower max, under what reasoning?

CHA and CON seem entirely arbitrary, 6d3 skews even more to the middle, than 3d6 so I'm not sure how that is an advantage if it is meant to be, even assuming one can provide legitimate justification for better / worse stat. Using athletic endurance events as a guide, 6k, 1/2 marathon, marathon, 50k walk, Ironman triathlon etc, men finish 5-10% faster. Average is not as easy to find, but the men's average for completing a marathon is 4 hours 22 minutes, vs 4 hours 48 minutes for women, which follows the pattern for the winners. Pain tolerance is a pretty vague measure. If as you claim women have better endurance and pain tolerance, then why the push to the middle, why not commit to that go with something like 2d6+6, 2d6+1d4+2 or similar and give them that superior status? Even justifying it with pulled out of your ass data that would at least provide some balance for the much lower strength. As it is you are using pulled out of your ass data to provide this "superior" female stat with solid mediocrity.


CHA again has this weird higher average, lower max. If you assume women have less leadership ability either innate or social construct, this makes no sense. If you wanted to fiddle around here, I would think something that averages low, but can go high (3d8-6) would make more sense, to represent few female leaders (or cultural bias against following a woman), but those few that exist are just as inspiring as the men (Joan of Arc, Queen Elizabeth I). As it stands your game world would have many mediocre female leaders, with few terrible or great ones.    


On the whole, while I can kind of understand why some feel these kinds of differences are important in a game, for the most part these particular changes seem to ensure female characters will tend to be "average", while male characters are more likely to be exceptionally good or bad (better odds of being above or below the median). We all know the exceptionally poor ones volunteer to open chests, doors and test dungeon floors for trap doors.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1095658REEEE! is a meme. Frequently associated with the Twitter outrage mobs.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/reeeeeee

Thank you. Now I've found exactly one thing worthwhile in this thread.

Quote from: ThePoxBox;1095581Disclaimer: I'm sure there is someone sensitive enough out there to be offended, and I will be the first one to tell you that we don't care. This will be the most credence that will be given to the SJW cry bullies in the hobby and in the industry. Going forward you will not be acknowledged, interacted with in any way (outside of civil debate,) and any serious transgression will be prosecuted whenever possible. It's not hard to find my address, but I will warn you that my front door is locked for your protection. If you take it upon yourself to drive hundreds of miles into Eastern Oregon uninvited to violate my civil liberties you will not be met with the benefit of the doubt.

This reads like a parody.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1095687This reads like a parody.

True, but everything in 2019 proves we're living in a computer simulation, but the scientists got drunk and are now just fucking with the matrix.

You are seriously pouring tons of effort into a MINOR difference.

You would be better served by creating cultures and then maybe creating MAX limits on attributes in exchange for feats. A female with a STR 15 does not have to look "bigger" than a male with a STR 13. The +2 she has hardly is going to skew any account of her as a female unless you focus on it. I see female athletes in crossfit that will outperform half the men in the room, easy.

With the combination of your ridiculous disclaimer, all the controversy surrounding women's soccer and the outrage at the lesbian who has the audacity to speak her mind, I feel like this is a silly attempt at chest-pounding retribution. What's more hilarious is how you might imagine this retribution playing out at your table? Do you feel the women at the table will be appropriately admonished?

It's tragic we can't invite Megan Rapinoe over to your house so your "female appropriate stat generation" declaration and subsequent game play couldn't be targeted directly at the lesbian that triggered you. Missed opportunity there.

Quote from: trechriron;1095693You are seriously pouring tons of effort into a MINOR difference.

Isn't that the impetus pretty much every fantasy heartbreaker?

Plenty of OSR retroclones on DriveThruRPG are all built around the author's pet peeve about a few rules.

Two points stand out to me:

First, you don't mention how character sex is determined. It seems to me that the point of random-roll stats is that characters don't get to choose their own strength, intelligence, etc. Rather, those are largely qualities that come from their birth and upbringing. Likewise, though, characters don't get to choose their own sex. So presumably it should be random-rolled.

Second is a point already brought up by Anselyn.

Quote from: ThePoxBox[1] demihumans (Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, and Halflings) being crafted in our own image with varying inclusion of historical and other fictional portrayals of these races.
[...]
[2] Demihumans in this game will be very strange, with different physiology and motivations than humans.

Quote from: Anselyn;1095610Aren't your points [1] and [2] contradictory?

I think your "autoethnography" means that you've thought about it a bit - well, well done you. Your final method - or would you prefer methodology as an unnecessary complicated term - is to do "research" except where you'd prefer just to make shit up. Why not just make shit up? Or just, shit stirring shit (as above).

I agree that these seem contradictory to me. For example, HarnMaster also has sex-based modifiers to PC stats. It also has random-roll tables to determine sex -- plus it makes its non-humans with different physiologies. Dwarves and elves are both relatively androgynous, with less difference between the sexes.

Is this kind of thread allowed here? Yes.

Do I think the argument is idiotic?  Yes.

Player characters are meant to be variants from the norm; it means other than average people would be likely to take up an adventuring life. This would be especially true in many settings of female adventurers. Its also evident from the title that the real goal here is to piss off people, and frankly most of the people who would be really pissed off by this thread are not even on this site.

The 3-18 range is so limited that any single man or any single woman could have any stat in any number within that range.


Note to people who cited Lion & Dragon in context of this thread: L&D is medieval "AUTHENTIC", not "realistic". Trying to achieve "realism" in an RPG is stupid, and almost always represents more about the writer's pet peeves or personal whims than any sincere desire to create a realistic simulation of some kind. Making a setting that tries to emulate historical social, religious or cultural elements and is based on sources from history, myth or folklore is totally different than trying the Quixotic attempt (even if sincerely attempted, which it usually isn't) of somehow simulating your own personal vision of what you imagine the 'real world' is like.

Excellent. I look forward to this edition of D&D and its realism. Let's continue in the realistic vein, and remove demihumans and monsters, levels and escalating hit points, and of course magic.

Realism! We could call it RealManD&D. Let's get going with it! I'm on board.

RealManD&D is called RIFTS!!!  For only those with great fortitude and strength can conquer that system!

Quote from: RPGPundit;1095699Note to people who cited Lion & Dragon in context of this thread: L&D is medieval "AUTHENTIC", not "realistic".

We've seen this "realism in RPGs" topic many times and predates the internet by decades. You chaffed at D&D's RenFaire faux-medieval-isms enough to write both L&D and Dark Albion, so the desire to add more "real world" aspects into RPGs is an old and strong desire shared by apparently many gamers. I see your focus on "Authentic" much like my concern for verisimilitude when dealing with genre emulation in RPGs so I understand why you differentiate from "realistic".

Where do you see the dividing line for Authentic vs. Realistic in regards to human biology? Or monster biology? Or combat?

Quote from: Spinachcat;1095642I'm always confused by demands of realism in a fantasy game.

If I'm playing an elf casting magic spells in a world with dragons and demons, I don't see why I would be concerned with any aspects of realism.

That's an awful argument. You may not be concerned with realism, but I bet you're concerned with versimilitude.
If I were facing Godzilla, and said my character kicks Godzilla to the moon, would you say yes? Would you have me roll the dice? Would you say "Um, even a warrior with 18 strength just can't kick Godzilla to the moon." And why shouldn't I be able to? It's a fantasy game, after all.

Quote from: ThePoxBox;1095635Interesting feedback. I would wonder if those injuries were mostly strength related? Full pack hauling is brutal for even most men. I can't imagine what it's like for women.

Most kinds of injury resilience relates to amount of muscle mass, not just directly strength related stuff like pack & armour hauling. The muscle sheathes the bones and organs and protects them from injury.

Women seem to have some advantage in being able to passively endure unpleasant conditions such as cold (or sitting in a sniper hole for days stewing in your own juices), but re pain tolerance, women report MORE pain, not less, than men in experiments - women display more pain sensitivity, contrary to stereotype.

Greater female life expectancy seems more about risk aversion.