Quote from: Spinachcat;1095786Beyond male vs. female stats, what makes your setting more believable than D&D?

Especially if non-human NPCs are not built off the believable baseline?

We're working on it. This is one of the first major mechanics to sort out.

There are no non-human NPCs as of yet. Demihumans are going to be completely different than the ones in the 5E SRD and will be released as playable characters later (maybe.)

Quote from: Omega;1095750Same here. Its allways been a core of my settings and RPGs. The average folk out there cleave fairly close to real world stat equivalents. Women tend to a little less in the strength area, but may be more agile. Whereas the adventurers are those that can through training rise above that. Same as in the real world a woman who has had military training is likely going to be stronger than one who hasnt. Or a woman who works on a farm for that matter.

This is the old "Statistics versus Individuals" duality. Everyone can point to someone that doesn't meet the norm of the statistical spread... because that's how statistics work. I'm now really leaning towards 18 maximum for females with a single roll that can illustrate that if possible, or multiple rolls if the first roll maxes out for females.

Quote from: Chris24601;1095793Personally, since the OP mentioned this is for 5e, I think you could leave the stats alone (they should be based on 4d6 drop lowest for 5e anyway), but have bonuses (say 1/2 proficiency) to certain skills. Males being physically stronger on average might have a bonus to athletics, while females being, on average, better at reading social dynamics might have a bonus to insight.

If it must be ability scores, my recommendation would be that females should have a slightly higher average and equal maximum WIS score compared to men (better risk aversion and ability to read social cues in general seems like things tied to Wisdom) and put the Int and Cha scores back to 3d6 (the differences in recorded IQs aren't significant enough to filter into a 3-18 scores and Charisma is so subjective I'd be inclined to say that men and women tend to use it differently instead of having different scores for it).

I definitely have to agree that the charisma bugbear is a complex one. We're definitely considering non-magical abilities for males and females separately tied to a 7th attractiveness stat.

Quote from: Omega;1095750Same here. Its allways been a core of my settings and RPGs. The average folk out there cleave fairly close to real world stat equivalents. Women tend to a little less in the strength area, but may be more agile. Whereas the adventurers are those that can through training rise above that. Same as in the real world a woman who has had military training is likely going to be stronger than one who hasnt. Or a woman who works on a farm for that matter.

I just don't see the point of gender stats when you can just do a little world building instead.

Quote from: CarlD.;1095719There should be detailed and realistic rules for frequency, volume and composition of defecation too.

There's a video game doing that, called Scum.

Quote from: ScumAnother aspect is digestion; for instance, if a character gets all of their teeth knocked out, they will have to find a way to liquify food in order to digest it. Defecating and urinating will leave physical evidence of activities on the island, which could be used to track another player.

Brilliant! Now OP, do you have rules for liquefying food? Do you have rules for knocking a player's teeth out? Er, I mean their character's teeth? You do want it to be realistic, don't you? Don't bow down to those politically correct wusses who can't handle teeth knocking-out rules! Real men understand that's part of violence, teeth being knocked out, bones broken, eyes gouged. It's not just hit points.

Quote from: Snowman0147I just don't see the point of gender stats when you can just do a little world building instead.

You mean... minimalist rules which allow for a DM to create their own setting, whole-cloth? You mean, assuming that people playing in a social creative hobby are social and creative?!

That's awfully 1977 of you. So instead of looking in a 500 page book people will use their imaginations?! What is this madness?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1095816You mean... minimalist rules which allow for a DM to create their own setting, whole-cloth? You mean, assuming that people playing in a social creative hobby are social and creative?!

That's awfully 1977 of you. So instead of looking in a 500 page book people will use their imaginations?! What is this madness?

I believe it is Old School Renaissance madness?  Perhaps even Rules Lite Lover madness?  Possibly I Just Want To Play The Game madness?  I really don't know.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1095816There's a video game doing that, called Scum.

Huzzah for realism!

Quote from: ThePoxBox;1095805This is the old "Statistics versus Individuals" duality. Everyone can point to someone that doesn't meet the norm of the statistical spread... because that's how statistics work. I'm now really leaning towards 18 maximum for females with a single roll that can illustrate that if possible, or multiple rolls if the first roll maxes out for females.

No. We are saying that adventurers are not the norm. They are by definition in some way above average. Just as a soldier through training is above average. Or a martial artist.

So the average citizen will have the expected baseline differences in say strength and dexterity. But someone with training or lifestyle will exceed that a little, or alot. And without training even an amazon  build woman may be beat by a little guy with training, or a little woman for that matter.

Training can really skew things every which way.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1095808I just don't see the point of gender stats when you can just do a little world building instead.

That is exactly what I did. There isnt any gender stat difference for PCs. Its just background data for NPCs.

The problem of ability scores for gender is that they are an abstraction and do not work at all realistically.  They serve a mechanical purpose, they don't represent the finer points of Human biology.

The difference between Strength 18 and 17 is only defined by the bonuses it grants and the probability of it occurring at all.  It doesn't clarify if that is the strongest man who ever lived, the best a hardy warrior can expect or whether it is beyond the limit of any gender/species.

None of the rules are realistic, and people have tried to to hammer the square peg of 'realistic' into the round hole of 'playable' for decades.  The rules make the game playable and ought to be authentic to the source material.

Quote from: Malleustein;1095842The problem of ability scores for gender is that they are an abstraction and do not work at all realistically.  They serve a mechanical purpose, they don't represent the finer points of Human biology.

The difference between Strength 18 and 17 is only defined by the bonuses it grants the probability of it occurring at all.  It doesn't clarify if that is the strongest man who ever lived, the best a hardy warrior can expect or whether it is beyond the limit of any gender/species.

None of the rules are realistic, and people have tried to to hammer the square peg of 'realistic' into the round hole of 'playable' for decades.  The rules make the game playable and ought to be authentic to the source material.

This!  Good sweet Lord this.  Sir you had hit the nail right in the head.  These ultra realistic rules are a bane to Tabletop RPGs and had plagued everyone with overbearing rules that serve no purpose other than to annoy people who just want to play the game.  It doesn't even serve immersion purposes as the moment you do something is the moment the game has to be paused for everyone to check the rules.

Quote from: ThePoxBox;1095806I definitely have to agree that the charisma bugbear is a complex one. We're definitely considering non-magical abilities for males and females separately tied to a 7th attractiveness stat.

I'm not even talking about attractiveness when I say men and women use charisma differently. I'm talking about how women and men value traits differently in terms of socializing and problem solving that persist from our days of differentiated labor as hunters (men) and gatherers (women) and the respective trials there of.

Quote from: Omega;1095839No. We are saying that adventurers are not the norm. They are by definition in some way above average. Just as a soldier through training is above average. Or a martial artist.

So the average citizen will have the expected baseline differences in say strength and dexterity. But someone with training or lifestyle will exceed that a little, or alot. And without training even an amazon  build woman may be beat by a little guy with training, or a little woman for that matter.

Training can really skew things every which way.

We have something to simulate training. They're called skills.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1095674I'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.

This is more of the kind of response I was looking for. I thank you for your input. I really like your STR array. It is much better than our first attempt. I would also include a d6 roll for those females rolling 13:

1- keep your 13
2- 14 STR
3- 15 STR
4- 16 STR
5- 17 STR
6- reroll

I will not argue that WIS and CHA are based mostly on observation. Figuring out how to make the other stats allow for 18s but make them less frequent for females, while having a higher average for females that males is where I want to be. 3d6 locking PCs may be the way to go, but we'll be working on fine tuning the numbers for NPCs, with 18s possible in all stats except for STR. I'm a little too drunk to get into more detail. I will venture to reply more again in the future, because this post deserves it.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1095845This!  Good sweet Lord this.  Sir you had hit the nail right in the head.  These ultra realistic rules are a bane to Tabletop RPGs and had plagued everyone with overbearing rules that serve no purpose other than to annoy people who just want to play the game.  It doesn't even serve immersion purposes as the moment you do something is the moment the game has to be paused for everyone to check the rules.

To me, 18 Strength means +3 to hit, damage and break down doors.

Within the world it means very strong, almost certainly big and muscular.

If I were being "realistic" about the assumption that Strength 18 is the pinnacle of Human physique, I would demand the character spend hours daily weight training, eat a special diet and under no circumstances go on adventures due to the time it would take out of his regime and the risk of injury.

That is why I don't give a shit about realism.