Should females be represented differently than males in RPGs?

[The_Mask]

I would also like to see that game have some modified rules for character sex, where males get bonuses to strength, intelligence, hit points, will saves, and bonus spells from wisdom and women get bonuses to dexterity, charisma, fortitude saves (better disease resistance for dealing with babies), constitution/wisdom skills, and wisdom based spell save DCs. That basically gives each sex two stats they're good at and part of the bonus from each of the other stats. It makes it so men are stronger and more durable in melee combat while women must rely on range, stealth, or speed to fight, and affects the type of spellcasting they're more likely to go for.

Sounds like you're saying that Arcanum was way ahead of its time.

[Admin's note: I split this off from a separate thread as it's an interesting discussion. The content of the title was written by me, not this post's author.]

[GhostCow]

Different stats for different sexes is a bad idea because having to play a certain gender for the stats you want is gay. If you were doing it accurately women wouldn't have a single stat higher than men anyway. They'd just be lower in nearly everything.

[WhiteShark]

Women should have lower stats than men, yes. If that's not the case in a setting, there should be justification for it. All media having inexplicably and impossibly exceptional women is tiring. Divine blessing, magic, the Force, whatever, but at least give a reason.

[GothGirlSupremacy]

Women should be pure hearted healers, seductive sorceresses or S&M attired roguesluts.

[rusty_shackleford]

Women are only inferior if you strictly limit yourself to combat while thinking of her like a man. Which is completely unsurprising.
They should excel at any role that would benefit being smaller/lighter or more manipulative. Also, a lot of men would simply be unwilling to fight a woman in combat, or at least unwilling to take them seriously in combat — cultural, honor, or merely thinking women are below them. This can be further exploited by taking advantage of a man's sensibilities e.g., feigning injury.

The issue is that women are treated like men and are found to be wanting in areas men excel at.

[MadPreacher]

Different stats for different sexes is a bad ideal because having to play a certain gender for the stats you want is gay. If you were doing it accurately women wouldn't have a single stat higher than men anyway. They'd just be lower in nearly everything.

Find me a woman that can have the same strength as a man and can match or exceed the current world record holder Jimmy Kolb's 1,350 pounds. I'll wait.

If you can't find me a woman that can beat that you are gay for wanting women to be just like men.

By the way, you'd hate Myths of Malignost since I did put in sexual dimorphism. In all but one race women have inferior strength to men.

[GhostCow]

Different stats for different sexes is a bad ideal because having to play a certain gender for the stats you want is gay. If you were doing it accurately women wouldn't have a single stat higher than men anyway. They'd just be lower in nearly everything.

Find me a woman that can have the same strength as a man and can match or exceed the current world record holder Jimmy Kolb's 1,350 pounds. I'll wait.

If you can't find me a woman that can beat that you are gay for wanting women to be just like men.

By the way, you'd hate Myths of Malignost since I did put in sexual dimorphism. In all but one race women have inferior strength to men.

Realism doesn't always make something more fun. Like I said, if you did stats realistically, women would just have lower stats than men in everything except for maybe charisma. I don't see what's fun about that.

[MadPreacher]

Different stats for different sexes is a bad ideal because having to play a certain gender for the stats you want is gay. If you were doing it accurately women wouldn't have a single stat higher than men anyway. They'd just be lower in nearly everything.

Find me a woman that can have the same strength as a man and can match or exceed the current world record holder Jimmy Kolb's 1,350 pounds. I'll wait.

If you can't find me a woman that can beat that you are gay for wanting women to be just like men.

By the way, you'd hate Myths of Malignost since I did put in sexual dimorphism. In all but one race women have inferior strength to men.

Realism doesn't always make something more fun. Like I said, if you did stats realistically, women would just have lower stats than men in everything except for maybe charisma. I don't see what's fun about that.

Oh the old stand by of fun factor. Well reality isn't fun. Now that is out of the way, you just want manly women and that is what makes you gay.

[GhostCow]

I'm mostly just bitching because I had to play as a f*male in Dragon Ball Xenoverse to have the highest ki blast damage

[Lhynn]

Different stats for different sexes is a bad ideal because having to play a certain gender for the stats you want is gay. If you were doing it accurately women wouldn't have a single stat higher than men anyway. They'd just be lower in nearly everything.

Find me a woman that can have the same strength as a man and can match or exceed the current world record holder Jimmy Kolb's 1,350 pounds. I'll wait.

If you can't find me a woman that can beat that you are gay for wanting women to be just like men.

By the way, you'd hate Myths of Malignost since I did put in sexual dimorphism. In all but one race women have inferior strength to men.

Realism doesn't always make something more fun. Like I said, if you did stats realistically, women would just have lower stats than men in everything except for maybe charisma. I don't see what's fun about that.

Whats the problem with women being weaker than men? Can always compensate by giving them access to stuff like witchcraft, or special interactions.

[Gastrick]

Different stats for different sexes is a bad idea because having to play a certain gender for the stats you want is gay. If you were doing it accurately women wouldn't have a single stat higher than men anyway. They'd just be lower in nearly everything.

Realism doesn't always make something more fun. Like I said, if you did stats realistically, women would just have lower stats than men in everything except for maybe charisma. I don't see what's fun about that.

Maybe instead just restricting them from becoming a "Barbarian" or "Knight" and make them stick to magic casters or rogues.

[GhostCow]

Different stats for different sexes is a bad idea because having to play a certain gender for the stats you want is gay. If you were doing it accurately women wouldn't have a single stat higher than men anyway. They'd just be lower in nearly everything.

Realism doesn't always make something more fun. Like I said, if you did stats realistically, women would just have lower stats than men in everything except for maybe charisma. I don't see what's fun about that.

Maybe instead just restricting them from becoming a "Barbarian" or "Knight" and make them stick to magic casters or rogues.

Women are less intelligent and dexterious than men so it still doesn't make sense. I could see Sorceress since they are charisma based, but that's about it. If we're really going with realism there wouldn't really be any female adventurers anyway. They'd all be tavern wenches, brothel workers, and mothers. I don't think trying to stop wokefaggery with game mechanics is going to work.

[somerandomdude]

Realism doesn't always make something more fun. Like I said, if you did stats realistically, women would just have lower stats than men in everything except for maybe charisma. I don't see what's fun about that.

What's considered fun is subjective, but to me that doesn't mean being able to put women into warrior roles and for them to be just as good as the men, it seems silly. Women are better suited to a class like a Bard, Sorceress, or possibly a thief because that's a class that favors having a smaller stature, and smaller hands assist with picking pockets and picking locks, etc.

[MadPreacher]

In Myths, women have their strength capped and can have Intelligence, Wisdom, or Constitution capped at 19 for their maximum.

Men can have 18(00) Strength.

[WhiteShark]

Women are less intelligent and dexterious than men so it still doesn't make sense. I could see Sorceress since they are charisma based, but that's about it. If we're really going with realism there wouldn't really be any female adventurers anyway. They'd all be tavern wenches, brothel workers, and mothers. I don't think trying to stop wokefaggery with game mechanics is going to work.

It's not about stopping wokefaggotry, it's about creating an immersive setting. If women are arbitrarily just as good as men at the same activities, it throws many people (including me) out of the experience. Getting two human women as frontline fighters in Kingmaker made me roll my eyes every time I thought about it.

Either treat the sexes differently or give a lore reason for why the adventurer women can compete with men (and make sure this is represented in the mechanics). If the developer fails to do that, I'm going to be continually puzzled over why these ostensibly human women are capable of feats so far beyond what ought to be their natural abilities.

[GhostCow]

What's considered fun is subjective, but to me that doesn't mean being able to put women into warrior roles and for them to be just as good as the men, it seems silly. Women are better suited to a class like a Bard, Sorceress, or possibly a thief because that's a class that favors having a smaller stature, and smaller hands assist with picking pockets and picking locks, etc.

I agree with this, but it should be up to the player, not the person designing the mechanics. I'm the guy who prefers a classless system where anyone can do anything they want. I get enough flavor from races. I don't need the genders to be different too. Either you can say fuck it and let the players do whatever, or you can be realistic and just not even have women as PCs because they'd just be worse than men or get raped within their first year of adventuring. Lots of people in this thread are saying they don't want female barbarians without realizing female rogues are just as unrealistic. Saying they'd be good at it because they have small hands is a cope. They still have worse dex irl and women aren't exactly known for being good at being criminals. Some of y'alls ideas of realistic aren't actually realistic because you've grown up in clown world and still think women can do more than they can even if you're more realistic about it than a shitlib.

[MadPreacher]

Lots of people in this thread are saying they don't want female barbarians without realizing female rogues are just as unrealistic.

I never said anything like that. Women can be any class they want. They just can't have 18(00) Strength, for all but the Kitharians. The Kitharians have women being the strongest while the men are capped.

[somerandomdude]

Women are less intelligent and dexterious than men so it still doesn't make sense.

Women are typically pretty good at doing small, detailed things with their hands and fingers, like sewing, etc. IMO, that favors into women not getting a dexterity penalty, which is the primary stat for a thief. Having smaller hands is advantageous for picking pockets and picking locks as well. I wouldn't even be opposed to women getting a lockpicking and pick pocketing skill bonus over men for this reason.

[Gastrick]

Women are less intelligent and dexterious than men so it still doesn't make sense. I could see Sorceress since they are charisma based, but that's about it. If we're really going with realism there wouldn't really be any female adventurers anyway. They'd all be tavern wenches, brothel workers, and mothers. I don't think trying to stop wokefaggery with game mechanics is going to work.

I know they're 3-5 IQ points lower than men on average, so still high enough intelligence to cast magic. Redguards on the other hand...

It still would be unrealistic for them to be skilled rogues or stealth-troopers, but would be less jarring than them being knights or fighters. That the difference in dexterity isn't huge like the difference in strength between men and women. With the muscle mass difference, the strongest 5% of women are weaker than the median, or average, male. This is hard for the dexterity difference to top.

[WhiteShark]

Shooting is actually one of the only sports where women can compete with men. The problem is they are mentally unfit for combat, so despite what they can do at the range, they don't make good soldiers in the heat of battle.

[GhostCow]

Lots of people in this thread are saying they don't want female barbarians without realizing female rogues are just as unrealistic.

I never said anything like that. Women can be any class they want. They just can't have 18(00) Strength, for all but the Kitharians. The Kitharians have women being the strongest while the men are capped.

So if a female player wants to be a barbarian, but she wants to have the optimal stats, she's going to have to play as a male, correct? This is GM enforced trannyism!

[somerandomdude]

So if a female player wants to be a barbarian, but she wants to have the optimal stats, she's going to have to play as a male, correct? This is GM enforced trannyism!

What's the realistic interpretation of a Barbarian role? It's a hulking dude who's built like a brick shithouse who wields a battle axe or massive sword with no fear. It's a hyper masculine role. When I think of a Barbarian, it's someone like this:



Or the anime version would be this:

[MadPreacher]

So if a female player wants to be a barbarian, but she wants to have the optimal stats, she's going to have to play as a male, correct? This is GM enforced trannyism!

Find me a woman that can have the same strength as a man and can match or exceed the current world record holder Jimmy Kolb's 1,350 pounds. I'll wait.

If you can't find me a woman that can beat that you are gay for wanting women to be just like men.

By the way, you'd hate Myths of Malignost since I did put in sexual dimorphism. In all but one race women have inferior strength to men.

I'm still waiting for you to find me a woman that can lift as much as a man. That's all you have to do to change my mind.

Also, there isn't that much difference between 18(50) Strength (female max) and 18(00) Strength (male max).

Strength 18(50): +1 to hit, +3 Damage, 135 lbs. Weight Allowance, 280 lbs. Max Press, 12 or less on 1d20 to Open Doors, and 20% to Bend Bars/Lift Gates.
Strength 18(00): +3 to hit, +6 Damage, 335 lbs. Weight Allowance, 480 lbs. Max Press, 16 or less on 1d20 to Open Doors and a 6% chance to open magical doors, and 40% to Bend Bars/Lift Gates.

Using these metrics 18(50) is pushing the entire realism argument as no woman can actually haul around 135 pounds worth of gear. The US Marine Corps did a study on it and found that the most a woman can carry is 75 pounds tops. Since this is a fantasy game I am allowing within the realm of possibility that a woman can actually carry 135 pounds and have a maximum press of 280 pounds.

So women being weaker than men is God enforced trannyism... Jesus get a grip man.

[NaturalSelectionist]

When you consider the main uses of dexterity in d&d, you have AC bonuses for dodging, reflex saves, ranged attacks, stealth, lockpicking, and a few niche skills like balance, escape artist, and tumble (which I think the Pathfinder PC games consolidated into acrobatics). Women are smaller, so being slightly harder to hit and having an easier time taking cover from area attacks (reflex save) makes some sense, though better dodge AC can be mitigated by more difficulty wearing armor. Women are lighter, smaller, and have more reason to be aware of people noticing them, so being better at stealth makes sense. While women don't tend to learn lockpicking as a trade because 80% of the work of being a locksmith involves meeting strangers in parking lots who locked their keys in their cars, so that has little to do with how good they are at it, their small hands and fine motor skills could easily make them as good or better. Women are more flexible on average so a bonus to acrobatics makes sense. The bonus to ranged attacks is the only questionable one, but since ranged attack damage with bows and thrown weapons is still based on strength, women would only be about as good as men with a bow, not better. That's why I'd either give women a dex bonus (if needed for balance) or leave that stat neutral.

Women aren't worse at everything, they're worse at some key things that make them significantly more dependent on men for their day to day survival, but they have their uses. I think it makes more sense to have a system that encourages men and women to do the things they specialize in than to continue using systems where women can do anything men can do just as well as they can, and making a balanced system that encourages gender roles keeps women from feeling left out by the redpilled game mechanics. We just have to make women feel wanted for the few specific things that they're good at while making them feel like failures if they try to be good at man things, women are motivated by feels so I 100% guarantee that such a system will thoroughly redpill any woman who bothers to play a game in it (and hopefully trigger some troons too).

[WhiteShark]

I'm pretty sure this is the anime version of a barbarian:

► Show Spoiler

[GhostCow]

So if a female player wants to be a barbarian, but she wants to have the optimal stats, she's going to have to play as a male, correct? This is GM enforced trannyism!

What's the realistic interpretation of a Barbarian role? It's a hulking dude who's built like a brick shithouse who wields a battle axe or massive sword with no fear. It's a hyper masculine role. When I think of a Barbarian, it's someone like this:



Or the anime version would be this:

See my reply to the quoted post below, because it pretty much covers what you said too.

Find me a woman that can have the same strength as a man and can match or exceed the current world record holder Jimmy Kolb's 1,350 pounds. I'll wait.

Doesn't exist, but that's not my point. As I've said, having female adventurers at all is pretty unrealistic to me, so I don't see why their stats have to be realistic too. Granted, I don't think players actually should make female human barbarians with the same max strength as a man, and I certainly cringe when I see that in my vidya, but the option should be there for those who want it. Just don't make it part of the narrative or lore. This isn't a thing where the gameplay has to match the lore. If you need an in-game explanation for why the stats are the way they are that's just autism. You have to be able to suspend your disbelief to enjoy any kind of fiction.

If I want a realistic party it's going to be all dudes. If I don't care about realism, I'm going to make a whole party of anime waifus with maybe a self insert character to lead the harem. Anything in between is cringe to me. I guess that makes me an extremist.

[MadPreacher]

Doesn't exist,

Then your argument is dead in regards to what I've said. I never said a word about realism in my statements. In fact, I've shown that women in Myths are quite unrealistic as they can exceed Intelligence, Constitution, and Wisdom of men. You had an argument somewhere in there didn't you?

My world is built upon the fact that women and men are different. They are not realistic in the slightest. I just have mandated sexual dimorphism because women and men are different physiologically. Until you can prove my position wrong I am not changing Jack and Shit in my world to suit people that want men wearing a woman's skin.

[GhostCow]

Doesn't exist,

Then your argument is dead in regards to what I've said. I never said a word about realism in my statements. In fact, I've shown that women in Myths are quite unrealistic as they can exceed Intelligence, Constitution, and Wisdom of men. You had an argument somewhere in there didn't you?

My world is built upon the fact that women and men are different. They are not realistic in the slightest. I just have mandated sexual dimorphism because women and men are different physiologically. Until you can prove my position wrong I am not changing Jack and Shit in my world to suit people that want men wearing a woman's skin.

If realism doesn't matter then why do you keep bringing up that there's no woman who can match some weight lifting champion? I'm completely confused by that.

[somerandomdude]

As I've said, having female adventurers at all is pretty unrealistic to me, so I don't see why their stats have to be realistic too. Granted, I don't think players actually should make female human barbarians with the same max strength as a man, and I certainly cringe when I see that in my vidya, but the option should be there for those who want it.

Females can fill support, or gadget roles just fine, IMO. So it's not that unrealistic. For example, a female bard who's good at speech checks, bartering, herbalism, potion making, etc.

[MadPreacher]

If realism doesn't matter then why do you keep bringing up that there's no woman who can match some weight lifting champion? I'm completely confused by that.

Because of SEXUAL DIMORPHISM. Maybe you've actually heard of it. It basically says that men and women are fundamentally different. One of the ways that they are different is in strength. Again the onus is on you to prove me, the designer of a world, that I'm wrong about science that I based my world on.

Humans have clearly sexual dimorphic traits. Males are slightly larger than females, as in many primate species. However, in humans, it is much reduced. A male orangutan is much larger than a female orangutan, where a human male is only slightly larger than a human female. Human breasts are different between males and females. Besides Bonobos, this is not necessarily common.

https://biologydictionary.net/sexual-dimorphism/

Prove me wrong with science and I'll change Myths to allow men to wear a woman's skin.