Reading the thread about playing across gender, I was wondering if it makes much of a difference whether a PC is male or female.
What has been people's experiences?
The genitalia. Male/female is a sexual divide, but playable characters by and large do not have a large amount of sexual diamorphism. Especially in adventurers, which typically go to the extremes, the differences between sexes is often the genetalia, females having breasts, and males having beards (Save in some settings in which dwarven females have beards.
Nothing more.
I remember there was a lawful good Necromancer/Monk I made for Iron Kingdoms. The rest of the party were scruffy scoundrelish types. As a male, my character probably wouldn't have fit in, but as a female, her lawful "goody-goody" ways were regarded as a feminine contrast to the rest of the party. ("Of course, she's not going to be interested in wine and whores; she's a church lady.")
|
once upon a time in less politically correct days there was a difference
Check page 15 of 1st ed. AD&D: a table for racial min/max for each stat and gender, but the only real difference is -1 Str for femme Dwarves, -2 Str for femme Elves, -3 Str for femme Gnomes and Halflings. All the other stats -- Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Chr -- are the same for both genders.
also these forums are making me wanna nerd-rage to ridiculous proportions. Is them actually working right too much to ask?
|
The genitalia. Male/female is a sexual divide, but playable characters by and large do not have a large amount of sexual diamorphism. Especially in adventurers, which typically go to the extremes, the differences between sexes is often the genetalia, females having breasts, and males having beards (Save in some settings in which dwarven females have beards.
Nothing more.
I tend to agree with this perspective, though sometimes it's fun to try and translate an archetype that is usually one gender/sex to the other as an interesting twist on what is otherwise a tired cliche.
However, as a GM, when introducing a new NPC who has stats and personality traits already set in stone, I'll just flip a coin or call evens or odds on a die and roll it to determine the sex of the character. That way, I know sex and gender won't make a difference in my game. Another tactic I have used is to intentionally alternate with each new NPC that comes in. A few times, I have had such a specific idea for a character that sex is already built into the character, and sometimes the romantic preferences of a character inform the sex/gender of a new NPC if I intend for another character in the game to have an interest in the new character.
EDIT: For example, an NPC in my game who was already established as being a straight male needed an unrequited love interest for a sub plot, so I made her a serving girl rather than a serving boy. The poor guy was brought up rich, and had a crush on the girl, but being a servant, she resented his wealth and spurned his advances. Created some good drama for the PCs, who were trying to win his support for their political goals.
Ya i remember the 1st edition days it didn't pay to play a female fighter type but it was still fun =)
I don't know. My most successful, perhaps my only successful 1st edition PC was a female half-orc fighter with 18/75 strength.
once upon a time in less politically correct days there was a difference
Check page 15 of 1st ed. AD&D: a table for racial min/max for each stat and gender, but the only real difference is -1 Str for femme Dwarves, -2 Str for femme Elves, -3 Str for femme Gnomes and Halflings. All the other stats -- Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Chr -- are the same for both genders.
also these forums are making me wanna nerd-rage to ridiculous proportions. Is them actually working right too much to ask?
Proof sublime that newer editions are better then older ones
Also these forums are a layer of hell all on their own. It's always the one time you forget to copy the whole message before posting that they delete it ;_;
"The number of fun entryways"
|
|
Gender does nothing for your min/max...although you could always put some homeade feats in for it.
Feminine Charm
+4 diplomacy for female PCs vs. male humanoid PC/NPCs
*the opposing race must find the race with this feat attractive*
lolz
Sadly, I don't think any of my PCs could pull off a female character and the girl that plays in my group isn't the best roleplayer as is.
Alas everything is solved with getting smashed.
Ya i remember the 1st edition days it didn't pay to play a female fighter type but it was still fun =)I don't know. My most successful, perhaps my only successful 1st edition PC was a female half-orc fighter with 18/75 strength.
Wait... didn't female characters take a -1 to Str (thus maxing out at 17) in 1st ed?
I don't exactly recall if half orcs got a Str bonus or not in those daqys.
(Save in some settings in which dwarven females have beards.
And ogre males have man-teats.
Gender does nothing for your min/max...although you could always put some homeade feats in for it.
Feminine Charm
+4 diplomacy for female PCs vs. male humanoid PC/NPCs
*the opposing race must find the race with this feat attractive*
d20 Modern had a very similar concept for a talent in their Charismatic base class. However, it wasn't tied strictly to females; any character could take it and then decide which gender they wanted to apply the bonuses to.
Years ago, one of the most memorable characters I DM'd for was a male Charismatic character who chose that ability and applied it to other men. The character in question was straight, but the player presented it as the character was simply a really "cool" guy into extreme sports that other men gravitated towards and trusted.
-Brooks
once upon a time in less politically correct days there was a difference
Check page 15 of 1st ed. AD&D: a table for racial min/max for each stat and gender, but the only real difference is -1 Str for femme Dwarves, -2 Str for femme Elves, -3 Str for femme Gnomes and Halflings. All the other stats -- Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Chr -- are the same for both genders.
also these forums are making me wanna nerd-rage to ridiculous proportions. Is them actually working right too much to ask?
Seriously? I'm going to have to go back and read those again. It's been years since I cracked open those old AD&D books.
If that's true, I'm suprised they didn't ballance the negative strength with something else. A +1 to wisdom perhaps. I remember reading a few years ago that women have more color cones in their eyes than men, so they probably have better color vision than men. I've also heard that women generally have more tastebuds than men, so they probably have a better sense of taste as well. Then there is the whole fact that the sense of smell is related to taste. Perception being a wisdom based skill, a +1 to wisdom would make some sense.
However, nowadays, there is no difference. If that is for P.C. or simplicity, who knows. Probably both.
(I'm gonna get flamed for this)
All political correctness aside, there are significant differences in male and female physical capability. Don't believe me? Pull out your copy of the Guiness Book of World Records and look at the athletic records. Compare the men and the women. While you're at it, pull out the military physical performance standards for your service. The US Army tried to set one physical standard: They found that what was a reasonable workout for the men injured too many of the women, and a reasonable workout for the women was not enough for the men. Before you dismiss the Army as sexist (they often are) recognize that this was an attempt to use 'one standard' to reduce sexism, and it did not work!
I generally ignore gender differences when people are creating their characters. If asked, I give female characters a -2 STR, and give them an extra +2 to put on any attribute they wish. If they choose to put it back on strength, then the character is noticably 'butch'.
I also give fair warning as to how sexist a given world setting is: In a sexist setting (such as a historical setting) the female characters are consistantly underestimated. As half my group is female these days, I am using fewer and fewer historical settings.
While real life biology most likely agrees with you, fantasy literature, movies, etc does not. We arent talking 'real' people, we are talking heroes in a story where some people can warp space and time to call down firey wrath from their gods, take on massive dragons in hand to hand combat, and truly sing a song that turns the tide of a major battle.
Its not real life, its a fantasy roleplaying game, and the rules should reflect that. Heck look at modern movies. Do you think Scarlet Johanson's character in Iron Man 2 should have been noticably butch because she was physically capable of beating the tar out of a bunch of guys?
(I'm gonna get flamed for this)
Let's go with "mildly corrected" ;p
All political correctness aside, there are significant differences in male and female physical capability. Don't believe me? Pull out your copy of the Guiness Book of World Records and look at the athletic records. Compare the men and the women. While you're at it, pull out the military physical performance standards for your service. The US Army tried to set one physical standard: They found that what was a reasonable workout for the men injured too many of the women, and a reasonable workout for the women was not enough for the men. Before you dismiss the Army as sexist (they often are) recognize that this was an attempt to use 'one standard' to reduce sexism, and it did not work!
Three problems here.
1) Women do indeed have an average of having lower body strength. Adventurers are not the average.
2) The differences in strengths typically only fully comes to play in large extremes. Adventurers bypass the extremes.
3) Any and all downsides that men have are constantly swept over, and in fact much of the time women are given a +1 wisdom or charisma bonus for being "more intuitive," which is just garbage.
You see, it's not about "political correctness." It's about "Oh god, ladyparts in my RPGs. D8 The penalties and bonuses are rooted in real life averages of upper body strengths, they're rooted in the classic sexism of "Women are weak but have 'instincts!'"
I generally ignore gender differences when people are creating their characters. If asked, I give female characters a -2 STR, and give them an extra +2 to put on any attribute they wish. If they choose to put it back on strength, then the character is noticably 'butch'.
Don't. That's stupid. Do you also give -2 fortitude to men because they're significantly more susceptible to infectious diseases? What about a penalty to wound attacks due to a higher blood pressure? How about a penalty to women when operating in the heat and a penalty to men when operating in the cold? Don't forget another -2 to men's will due to a higher aptitude for many mental diseases!
No. Nobody does these. Because they're also stupid. But they do give women lower stats, because it's not about "realism" - they just want to punish women.
I also give fair warning as to how sexist a given world setting is: In a sexist setting (such as a historical setting) the female characters are consistantly underestimated. As half my group is female these days, I am using fewer and fewer historical settings.
If you want to play a realistic historical setting, play GURPS. I don't mean that in an insulting way - that's exactly what GURPS is really, really good at! GURPS makes for great psuedo-realistic settings! But D&D is not good for this. Do you also take out all wizards and divine power and dragons and supernatural creatures, as well as causing all players to roll on a peasantry chart (percentage roll, if you get a 95 or higher you get to be an adventurer! 94? Sorry, off to the fields)? Or do you just punish the female characters?
Do you think Scarlet Johanson's character in Iron Man 2 should have been noticably butch because she was physically capable of beating the tar out of a bunch of guys?
I think her character should've been left out of the movie entirely. :p
ProfessorCirno, you gave me exactly the response I was expecting.
"It's fantasy, so let's throw out reality!"
Let's look at something related:
Pathfinder rulebook, page 21, Dwarven Racial Characteristics:
Hatred: Dwarves receive a +1 bonus on attack rolls against humanoid creatures of the orc and goblinoid subtypes due to special training against these hated foes.
Pathfinder rulebook, page 23, Gnomish Racial Characteristics:
Hatred: Gnomes receive a +1 bonus on attack rolls against humanoid creatures of the reptilian and goblinoid subtypes due
to special training against these hated foes.Let's look at this: Dwarves and gnomes are so racist there are game mechanics to encourage and support this behavior.
So a game mechanic to acknowledge the realities of sexual dimorphism is worse than a game mechanic to encourage racism?
I think you can overdo anything - we could build in a lot of game mechanics to describe different gender-based and racial-based characteristics. I use a simple mechanic that glosses over a lot of differences, but which acknowledges how humanity actually works.
As I said before, half of my regular players are female; while they acknowledge that sometimes I run a sexist game world, they all agree that I do not run a sexist game. I think that's the important thing.
Certain things are part of a fantasy world, and certain things are not. Gnomes disliking reptillian humanoids, definately part of fantasy standards where gnomes are included. Female heroines having a tendancy to either be weak and frail or big and butch, is not part of fantasy standards. Its not about elements of a story being morally right or wrong, its about the fact that heroine characters dont have to be big butch characters to be physically strong. The standard is present throughout fantasy literature and movies, and it's why there isnt such a distinction in the game rules.
Dwarves and Gnomes get bonuses because of training, not racism.
Yes, fantasy games throw out reality and replace it with fantasy. That's why it's called fantasy.
The game designers from 3.0 on up decided that ignoring gender differences in regards to stats was a good idea. And they were right.
|
Do you think Scarlet Johanson's character in Iron Man 2 should have been noticably butch because she was physically capable of beating the tar out of a bunch of guys?
I think she should have been played by an actress that at least looked semi-plausible in the role. Jennifer Garner as Elektra or Sydney Bristow kicking a guy's ass I can buy. ScarJo as a badass? Not so much.
Well, on the other side of the coin, there may be "other" differences between the genders that do have serious traction in the fantasy / mythology multiverse.
I mean, who sacrifices a male virgin to a dragon in the lottery that will save the kingdom from incendiary destruction? Why does the dragon like the taste of virginal womanly flesh exclusively for this sacrifice?
|
If you really want to represent semi-accurate sexual dimorphism in a d20 system, I'd give males a +1 or +2 to Strength and females a +1 or +2 to Constitution. Females are more resilient to diseases, live longer, and are designed to give birth, which is an incredibly taxing process. Males on the other hand are bigger and stronger.
I would not give either sex any mental attribute mods; not only is there little evidence for very large differences between the sexes, but you open up quite the can of Rovagugs with those.
As is, though, I think not having any noticeable statistical difference is preferable, as it allows you to play whatever character you want regardless of sex.
|
|
Well, on the other side of the coin, there may be "other" differences between the genders that do have serious traction in the fantasy / mythology multiverse.
I mean, who sacrifices a male virgin to a dragon in the lottery that will save the kingdom from incendiary destruction? Why does the dragon like the taste of virginal womanly flesh exclusively for this sacrifice?
Simple point : it is noticeably easier to tell if a woman is a virgin than if a man is. So if a failure in the ritual dooms the kingdom ...
On the other hand, if there was such a problem around where I live, I'd do my best to lose my virginity soon.
The classic fantasy warrior women - Jirel of Joiry comes to mind - are unique in their worlds. If you insist on political correctness as far as gender roles, the female warrior stops being unique, and becomes just another soldier. Will you take that uniqueness away from her?
Aren't you taking her uniqueness away from her by insisting that she can never be the physical equal of a man?
And this has nothing to do with "political correctness" and everything to do with not offending half the people on the planet (and half the potential players and customers) by enforcing your personal gender bias in the name of "realism."
|
|
Aren't you taking her uniqueness away from her by insisting that she can never be the physical equal of a man?
And this has nothing to do with "political correctness" and everything to do with not offending half the people on the planet (and half the potential players and customers) by enforcing your personal gender bias in the name of "realism."
+1!
Playing a male vs. a female should be a role-play thing, and not about stat modifers. A woman can be BUFF and still not be BUTCH.
If I were to get penalized for playing a female, I'd find a new DM. If it were part of the game, I'd find a different game.
DMs shouldn't give women/girls any more grief than they already get with the other players.
[Edit] cooling down the language and temper.
Could the mods please lock this pointless and dumb flamebait thread please? :P
|
|
another thing to consider: If the difference in strength between a 3 foot tall halfling - about the height of a human toddler - is only two less than that of a full adult human in its prime, I don't think the differences between an extremely strong human male and an extremely strong human female is measurable in integers on the current stat scale.
Seriously. Find the strongest 3 year old you can and compare their ability to lift weights versus yours. That's a -2.
Could the mods please lock this pointless and dumb flamebait thread please? :P
+1
We arent talking 'real' people, we are talking heroes in a story where some people can warp space and time to call down firey wrath from their gods, take on massive dragons in hand to hand combat, and truly sing a song that turns the tide of a major battle.
QFT
|
once upon a time in less politically correct days there was a difference
Check page 15 of 1st ed. AD&D: a table for racial min/max for each stat and gender, but the only real difference is -1 Str for femme Dwarves, -2 Str for femme Elves, -3 Str for femme Gnomes and Halflings. All the other stats -- Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Chr -- are the same for both genders.
also these forums are making me wanna nerd-rage to ridiculous proportions. Is them actually working right too much to ask?
Proof sublime that newer editions are better then older ones
Also these forums are a layer of hell all on their own. It's always the one time you forget to copy the whole message before posting that they delete it ;_;
That all depends on your definition of 'better'.
|
|
another thing to consider: If the difference in strength between a 3 foot tall halfling - about the height of a human toddler - is only two less than that of a full adult human in its prime, I don't think the differences between an extremely strong human male and an extremely strong human female is measurable in integers on the current stat scale.
Seriously. Find the strongest 3 year old you can and compare their ability to lift weights versus yours. That's a -2.
A three year old lacks the development to be a stand in for a halfling. I suspect you'd have more 'realistic' results by comparing the strongest 3 foot tall adult you can find.
|
|
A three year old lacks the development to be a stand in for a halfling. I suspect you'd have more 'realistic' results by comparing the strongest 3 foot tall adult you can find.another thing to consider: If the difference in strength between a 3 foot tall halfling - about the height of a human toddler - is only two less than that of a full adult human in its prime, I don't think the differences between an extremely strong human male and an extremely strong human female is measurable in integers on the current stat scale.
Seriously. Find the strongest 3 year old you can and compare their ability to lift weights versus yours. That's a -2.
That works too, but then you'd also want to find the strongest full sized adult to keep it apples to apples. I figured a strong toddler would be more equal to us forum perusers in our strength scores on the player character strength stat bell curve.
|
|
That works too, but then you'd also want to find the strongest full sized adult to keep it apples to apples. I figured a strong toddler would be more equal to us forum perusers in our strength scores on the player character strength stat bell curve.A three year old lacks the development to be a stand in for a halfling. I suspect you'd have more 'realistic' results by comparing the strongest 3 foot tall adult you can find.another thing to consider: If the difference in strength between a 3 foot tall halfling - about the height of a human toddler - is only two less than that of a full adult human in its prime, I don't think the differences between an extremely strong human male and an extremely strong human female is measurable in integers on the current stat scale.
Seriously. Find the strongest 3 year old you can and compare their ability to lift weights versus yours. That's a -2.
Compromise on a strong 10 year old of less than average height? A toddler's bone and muscles simply wouldn't be developed enough to give any kind of 'realistic' comparison.
|
On my first adventure, another guy and I were both playing female characters (I played a rogue; he played a witch). We were journeying through the desert, so the cleric in the group kept creating water. When someone in the group suggested a wet T-shirt contest, the witch said something about Evil Eye, and I mentioned that I was carrying a rapier, 6 daggers, two vials of alchemists' fire, a flask of acid and a bow and arrows. The topic changed.
My two daughters found it highly amusing and a trifle disturbing that my first character is female. My son just looked at the picture of Merisiel and said, "Whoa. Armed to the teeth!"
I guess technically the characters' gender does not usually make much difference, but it can make more interesting role-playing.
|
|
Compromise on a strong 10 year old of less than average height? A toddler's bone and muscles simply wouldn't be developed enough to give any kind of 'realistic' comparison.
Lol. The realism is all pretty relative here. All I'm saying is, if the bell curve for statisitcs between toddler height adults and human sized adults is a grand total of two, there's not going to be a significant enough difference between males and females to show up in stat measurements as anything other than fractional values.
People seem to lose sight of that perspective in these arguments.
|
|
Compromise on a strong 10 year old of less than average height? A toddler's bone and muscles simply wouldn't be developed enough to give any kind of 'realistic' comparison.Lol. The realism is all pretty relative here. All I'm saying is, if the bell curve for statisitcs between toddler height adults and human sized adults is a grand total of two, there's not going to be a significant enough difference between males and females to show up in stat measurements as anything other than fractional values.
People seem to lose sight of that perspective in these arguments.
I think I'm gonna write up some gender houserules to add to my document. :-p