Mammalian muscle tissue has a density of about 1.06 kg/liter and an efficiency of about 18% to 26%. Let's say that, in the context of a fantasy campaign setting, I wanted to change that. After all, humans are sharing this world with a lot of dangerous magical creatures. They will have to be incredibly tough to evolve in such an environment.
There are two things I am considering doing. First, up the density of mammalian muscle tissue. I am hoping to increase strength this way, but not sure by how much density could be increased. Would this actually increase strength, would it work without dramatically increasing the physical size of the muscle, and would it effect energy efficiency, or is it just not feasible?
The other idea is, to instead of changing density, change the efficiency. Is that something that could increase strength?
The basic idea here is to create a situation where humans are stronger than they are IRL. Are there any ways to go about this without increasing muscle size drastically other than the two (of dubious workability) that I've come up with?
I would start researching the other animals types (like reptiles) for their muscle tissue data, then do the comparisons.
You'll get an idea of what effects what given the differences.
I can't find the information for anything other than mammals.
Than I would look at the differences in the Mammalian muscle tissue from different the various Mammals themselves and compare them.
Is an Elephant's muscle density the same as a mouse's muscle density, than what of the difference in efficiency?
What are the differences between the Wolf and the Loin's muscle density and efficiency?
Muscle tissue does not differ in density within mammals. I'm fairly sure it differences within animal class, but I can't find the numbers. Where mammal muscle tissue differs is in the way it's connected to the bone and the way it's controlled. This can effect strength a great deal. However, to increase human strength via this method fine motor control would have to be decreased and the shape of the body changed.
What I want to do is make muscle tissue stronger all mammals, and therefore by extension humans.
Don't try to model one theoretical system with another abstraction of reality.
You'll increase strength
Increase caloric intake, which raises the price of food.
Reduce the number of children (quantity vs quality)
Have people mature faster
Increase speed, reducing traveling times
... and probably a thousand other things.
I think i have to ask WHY you're trying to do this, and see if there's a simpler way to get the same result.
I think i have to ask WHY you're trying to do this, and see if there's a simpler way to get the same result.
I want to make the average healthy young adult female of this fantasy world a bit stronger than the average healthy young adult male of the real world. I'd like even more to kill the gender strength disparity completely, but I can't think of a way, so I'll settle for making everybody stronger on average so that the disparity matters less.
In terms of world building in the game does the science really matter? It's an interesting thought exercise, but if you want humans to be stronger simply through them a strength bonus. In a fantasy game I don't see any thing too odd about just hand waving a presumption that humans in world X are unusually strong, but they aren't musclebound?
I hope I didn't completely miss your point.
Bitter Thorn, my point is to make humans strong enough that gender disparity matters less, without making individuals look different.
A wizard did it.
In sci-fi it might be worth worrying about if you didn't want to take the usual hand-wave approach of 'born on a high-g world'. In fantasy, you're already dealing with dwarves, halflings, kobolds, and other small creatures that are as strong or stronger than humans with twice their muscle mass.
If it makes humans strong enough that gender disparity matters less and female soldiers are common, I'm happy. If it kills gender disparity altogether, I am happier. Those are my goals here.
This.
If you think it's a cool fit for your world I would think the only question would be racial game balance.
Bitter Thorn, my point is to make humans strong enough that gender disparity matters less, without making individuals look different.
In reality that won't happen due to the properties and amounts of Androgens and Estrogens in the body,
but in fastasy you could bypass these rules.Gender difference and muscle mass
Bitter Thorn, my point is to make humans strong enough that gender disparity matters less, without making individuals look different.In reality that won't happen due to the properties and amounts of Androgens and Estrogens in the body, in fastasy you could bypass it.
Gender difference and muscle mass
Perhaps change how the female body reacts to testosterone so that it can double for estrogen in their bodies?
I think i have to ask WHY you're trying to do this, and see if there's a simpler way to get the same result.I want to make the average healthy young adult female of this fantasy world a bit stronger than the average healthy young adult male of the real world. I'd like even more to kill the gender strength disparity completely, but I can't think of a way, so I'll settle for making everybody stronger on average so that the disparity matters less.
Erm.. hasn't that already been done? There's no gender differences in strength scores for pc's OR npc's. Its one of those biology mechanics that has a HUGE effect on culture but isn't modeled in the game at all.
Yes, BNW, but I want to explain WHY it isn't modeled in game at all and why is has very little effect in the cultures I'm creating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
or you change how the female muscle tissue reacts to Estrogens.
On average, males are physically stronger than females. The difference is due to females, on average, having less total muscle mass than males, and also having lower muscle mass in comparison to total body mass. While individual muscle fibers have similar strength, males have more fibers due to their greater total muscle mass. The greater muscle mass of males is in turn due to a greater capacity for muscular hypertrophy as a result of men's higher levels of testosterone. Males remain stronger than females, when adjusting for differences in total body mass. This is due to the higher male muscle-mass to body-mass ratio.
As a result, gross measures of body strength suggest an average 40-50% difference in upper body strength between the sexes as a result of this difference, and a 20-30% difference in lower body strength. This is supported by another study that found females are about 52-66 percent as strong as males in the upper body, and about 70-80 percent as strong in the lower body. One study of muscle strength in the elbows and knees—in 45 and older males and females—found the strength of females to range from 42 to 63% of male strength.
or you change how the female muscle tissue reacts to Estrogens.
On average, males are physically stronger than females. The difference is due to females, on average, having less total muscle mass than males, and also having lower muscle mass in comparison to total body mass. While individual muscle fibers have similar strength, males have more fibers due to their greater total muscle mass. The greater muscle mass of males is in turn due to a greater capacity for muscular hypertrophy as a result of men's higher levels of testosterone. Males remain stronger than females, when adjusting for differences in total body mass. This is due to the higher male muscle-mass to body-mass ratio.
As a result, gross measures of body strength suggest an average 40-50% difference in upper body strength between the sexes as a result of this difference, and a 20-30% difference in lower body strength. This is supported by another study that found females are about 52-66 percent as strong as males in the upper body, and about 70-80 percent as strong in the lower body. One study of muscle strength in the elbows and knees—in 45 and older males and females—found the strength of females to range from 42 to 63% of male strength.
So, if estrogens had the ability to encourage muscular hypertrophy just like testosterone, the gender strength gap could be closed a bit?
the gap would close a good piece, but not completely.
Even under the conditions of testosterone causing muscular hypertrophy in males and estrogen causing muscular hypertrophy in females.
This is due to differences in skeleton design, blood count, lung size, heart size, etc.
Oh, I know I can't completely close the gap. I just want to do so enough to make a high commonality of female warriors realistic.
It'd be cool to close the gap completely, but I know it won't happen. Closing a big piece is good enough for me.
Oh, I know I can't completely close the gap. I just want to do so enough to make a high commonality of female warriors realistic.
It'd be cool to close the gap completely, but I know it won't happen. Closing a big piece is good enough for me.
In that case you might not like my Paradox RPG system as it is using a lot of realistic data converted into character variation equations and variables.
Female warriors are still very viable in the system though as the Female warriors may not hit as hard, but hit more often in return.
May I suggest that instead of changing the physiology of human beings, you simply examine the world and culture a little bit?
Your stated goal is to "make the average healthy young adult female of this fantasy world a bit stronger than the average healthy young adult male of the real world"...that being said, I am working from a couple of basic assumptions here. 1) That the level of technology available to the average human being of your milieu is roughly equivalent to a standard, "medieval" fantasy setting, and that 2) While magic exists, it is not widely available to every member of the populace. Everything that I am about to say rests on those two assumptions...if they are incorrect, please correct me.
Your "average healthy young adult female of this fantasy world" is by default stronger than her real-life male counterpart because of the world she grew up in. Without electricity, running water, or various mechanical contraptions (internal combustion or steam engines, for example) to perform work for people, people will have to do all that work themselves. The real-life modern male you speak of has most likely never had to fetch 10-15 buckets of water a day from the village well...every single day for 13-15 years of his life. Likewise, it is highly unlikely that our modern man has ever needed to shoe a horse, plow a field, tend a garden, slaughter a hog, or do any of the many, many other labour intensive tasks required to sustain a common medieval subsistence. (The modern man may be doing some of those things for hobby or diversion, but the fantasy lady didn't have a choice...she HAD to do these things if she wanted to eat
Likewise, while our modern man may have better access to medical care and information regarding health and fitness, our fantasy lady has (for the most part) been eating much healthier food, and has had no exposure (or minimal exposure, at least) to the toxic by-products of modern life. In short, our fantasy lady simply grew up in an environment that is, in many ways, much...
One problem with your thoughts, the male would also be in that environment and thus working his butt off as well.
And given his androgens will still be stronger.You'd have to change to physiology to really narrow the gap.
Read the data below
On average, males are physically stronger than females. The difference is due to females, on average, having less total muscle mass than males, and also having lower muscle mass in comparison to total body mass. While individual muscle fibers have similar strength, males have more fibers due to their greater total muscle mass. The greater muscle mass of males is in turn due to a greater capacity for muscular hypertrophy as a result of men's higher levels of testosterone. Males remain stronger than females, when adjusting for differences in total body mass. This is due to the higher male muscle-mass to body-mass ratio.
As a result, gross measures of body strength suggest an average 40-50% difference in upper body strength between the sexes as a result of this difference, and a 20-30% difference in lower body strength. This is supported by another study that found females are about 52-66 percent as strong as males in the upper body, and about 70-80 percent as strong in the lower body. One study of muscle strength in the elbows and knees—in 45 and older males and females—found the strength of females to range from 42 to 63% of male strength.
May I suggest that instead of changing the physiology of human beings, you simply examine the world and culture a little bit?
Your stated goal is to "make the average healthy young adult female of this fantasy world a bit stronger than the average healthy young adult male of the real world"...that being said, I am working from a couple of basic assumptions here. 1) That the level of technology available to the average human being of your milieu is roughly equivalent to a standard, "medieval" fantasy setting, and that 2) While magic exists, it is not widely available to every member of the populace. Everything that I am about to say rests on those two assumptions...if they are incorrect, please correct me.
Your "average healthy young adult female of this fantasy world" is by default stronger than her real-life male counterpart because of the world she grew up in. Without electricity, running water, or various mechanical contraptions (internal combustion or steam engines, for example) to perform work for people, people will have to do all that work themselves. The real-life modern male you speak of has most likely never had to fetch 10-15 buckets of water a day from the village well...every single day for 13-15 years of his life. Likewise, it is highly unlikely that our modern man has ever needed to shoe a horse, plow a field, tend a garden, slaughter a hog, or do any of the many, many other labour intensive tasks required to sustain a common medieval subsistence. (The modern man may be doing some of those things for hobby or diversion, but the fantasy lady didn't have a choice...she HAD to do these things if she wanted to eat
Likewise, while our modern man may have better access to medical care and information regarding health and fitness, our fantasy lady has (for the most part) been eating much healthier food, and has had no exposure (or minimal exposure, at least) to the toxic by-products of modern life. In short, our fantasy lady simply grew up in an environment that is, in many ways, much...
The issue here is that the males would also be a great deal stronger. I want to close the gender gap a bit so that having a military that is around 30-40% female in it's frontline combat elements is realistic.
The assumption as to available technology would also be wrong. Firearms aren't available, so medieval weaponry is relied upon, but magic is widely available to most individuals, electricity exists (it is used to recharge magic items), and the causes of disease are (thanks to magic) understood and combated. Magic is also used for transportation and agriculture, meaning urbanization is taking hold. Despite fighting with swords and bows, this world looks like the modern world in a very large number of ways. The average person of this fantasy world hasn't been working harder or exposed to more disease, or eating a healthier diet for that matter, than the average modern person, and the military is mostly commoners who had never trained with a weapon before enlisting (Feudalism and the knightly classes are dead due to the economic effects of all this magic, so there isn't a professional warrior caste to turn to.).
I'm fine with genetic manipulation being necessary. There are deities to do that.
As for the rest, the average lifestyle in this fantasy world and the average modern lifestyle are very similar, so it's a fair comparison.
You do have a very good point about Giants, however. If Giants can exist, perhaps some goddesses saw bad things happening to women and decided that women should, from now on, have equal strength as men, and make female muscle stronger than male muscle to compensate for their being less of it?
"The issue here is that the males would also be a great deal stronger. I want to close the gender gap a bit so that having a military that is around 30-40% female is realistic."
Well, that's even easier...simply remove sexism. Real-world history has demonstrated time and again that whenever given the chance, women prove to be just as good at soldiering as men...better in some ways (women tend to instinctively cooperate and work together as a group, whereas most men have to be extensively trained...brainwashed, even, to do the same thing).
In modern warfare, yes. Dressed out in heavy armor and carrying a sword, however, the disparity begins to cause problems. Carrying a 100 pound pack and shooting a rifle is very different from trying to smash through armor with a weapon. The 50% disparity in average upper body strength causes problems there.
I think i have to ask WHY you're trying to do this, and see if there's a simpler way to get the same result.I want to make the average healthy young adult female of this fantasy world a bit stronger than the average healthy young adult male of the real world. I'd like even more to kill the gender strength disparity completely, but I can't think of a way, so I'll settle for making everybody stronger on average so that the disparity matters less.Umm... the game doesn't have any gender disparity. If you put your +2 to strength, it matters not what gender the character is.
If you want to create a new Human race with different modifiers, that's really all you need to do. Last I heard, not even Tolkien bothered to measure the muscular density differences between Elves, Humans, Numenoreans, and Orcs.
I want to explain WHY the game stats lack gender disparity, and why the cultures lack gender disparity.
Also I would like to point out that unless you are arming all of your human armies with the axes of the Housecarls, making women stronger might actually DETRACT from their abilities as soldiers. While it is true they don't possess the same muscle mass as men, they generally have much greater sensory acuity, as well as slightly better hand-eye coordination. A phalanx of female archers supported by a formation of pike men is a fearsome opponent for any fantasy army, regardless of its composition.
Now that I have a better handle on what you are actually trying to accomplish, I guess my real question is "Why?". Why change women so they can serve in an army? Why not let women serve in armies by playing to their (considerable) strengths, rather than making them more like men?
He's got a very good point and has listed some true facts
Heres a list and who winsPerception: Females
Strength: Males
Endurance: Males
Hand-eye Coordination: Females
Logical Processing: Males
Memory: Females
Languages: Females
Spacial Perception: Males
Resist Disease: Female
Resist Poison: Male
Also I would like to point out that unless you are arming all of your human armies with the axes of the Housecarls, making women stronger might actually DETRACT from their abilities as soldiers. While it is true they don't possess the same muscle mass as men, they generally have much greater sensory acuity, as well as slightly better hand-eye coordination. A phalanx of female archers supported by a formation of pike men is a fearsome opponent for any fantasy army, regardless of its composition.
A phalanx of female archers and a phalanx of male archers would either perform about the same, or the male phalanx would perform a bit better do to their strength (which does matter with a longbow or crossbow). This increased sensory acuity would have no measurable effect in combat, because it is mostly for figuring out fine details like shades of color to make foraging easier. As for hand eye coordination, it's only slightly better, which wouldn't effect much.
Now that I have a better handle on what you are actually trying to accomplish, I guess my real question is "Why?". Why change women so they can serve in an army? Why not let women serve in armies by playing to their (considerable) strengths, rather than making them more like men?
Because women don't have considerable strengths in medieval warfare.
One more thing to think about (and then I'm done, I promise). Due to their much greater ability to empathize, it is perfectly rational to suppose that women might make excellent cavalry troops. Certainly, they could form a closer, stronger bond with their mount (which would lead to more effective cooperation and battlefield capability), and the problem of strength is certainly ameliorated (if not outright solved altogether) by the assistance a good warhorse can provide.
Just one problem. The horse is constantly replaced. Cavalry troopers generally didn't have a lot of time for bonding with a horse, as they would usually own several, and switch as necessary.
Also I would like to point out that unless you are arming all of your human armies with the axes of the Housecarls, making women stronger might actually DETRACT from their abilities as soldiers. While it is true they don't possess the same muscle mass as men, they generally have much greater sensory acuity, as well as slightly better hand-eye coordination. A phalanx of female archers supported by a formation of pike men is a fearsome opponent for any fantasy army, regardless of its composition.
Now that I have a better handle on what you are actually trying to accomplish, I guess my real question is "Why?". Why change women so they can serve in an army? Why not let women serve in armies by playing to their (considerable) strengths, rather than making them more like men?
He's got a very good point and has listed some true facts
Heres a list and who winsPerception: Females
Strength: Males
Endurance: Males
Hand-eye Coordination: Females
Logical Processing: Males
Memory: Females
Languages: Females
Spacial Perception: Males
Resist Disease: Female
Resist Poison: Male
Perception: Females
For fine details that don't matter in a battle.
Strength: Males
Endurance: Males
Hand-eye Coordination: Females
Not a large enough gap to effect much.
Logical Processing: Males
Memory: Females
Useful in many circumstances, but not a fight.
Languages: Females
Useful in many circumstances, but not a fight.
Spacial Perception: Males
Resist Disease: Female
Not a factor (Healthcare).
Resist Poison: Male
Don't get me wrong. Women can fight, and well, and I do support allowing female infantry. Women can do just fine in modern warfare. The issue is that modern warfare is not medieval warfare. Women are only about half as strong as men. That is a MASSIVE disadvantage in a fight with medieval weaponry, and female advantages over males do not make up for it. I also don't want to put males in some roles and women in others, as was suggested above to take advantage of the female advantages. I want to put males and females into the same roles and the same units, not different roles or segregated units.
I think the idea of the gods deciding to eliminate gender disparity is an excellent way of going about this. I'll go that route.
Kels, I have to back up Name Violation on this one. How exactly is any functional difference written into the game? Sure, height and weight are different for males and females, but that has absolutely no effect on the stats of said character.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it makes humans strong enough that gender disparity matters less and female soldiers are common, I'm happy. If it kills gender disparity altogether, I am happier. Those are my goals here.
Consider including in your game world a 0-level cantrip or orison that drastically shortens the length of a pregnancy (like, to a month or even a week). Women didn't fight much in medieval times because they were biologically shoehorned into reproductive roles. A man's role in reproduction is over in minutes. A woman's role takes 9 months, or longer if she takes care of the kids herself, during which time she's essentially incapable of anything resembling combat or heavy labor. Men had to do those things because women were too busy preventing the species from dying out.
Short pregnancies + availability of child care (perhaps wet nursing is a full-time occupation, or a community's elderly take care of the children) mean that women's time would not need to be taken up with reproductive concerns, allowing them time to do other things... like train as a soldier. Or carry heavy things around to build upper body strength. If the magic to make pregnancies short and safe exists and is common enough that every village priest or hedge-witch can cast it, there would be drastically less occupational gender selection.
I know that the differences are not written into the game. I want to explain why this is.
If it makes humans strong enough that gender disparity matters less and female soldiers are common, I'm happy. If it kills gender disparity altogether, I am happier. Those are my goals here.Consider including in your game world a 0-level cantrip or orison that drastically shortens the length of a pregnancy (like, to a month or even a week). Women didn't fight much in medieval times because they were biologically shoehorned into reproductive roles. A man's role in reproduction is over in minutes. A woman's role takes 9 months, or longer if she takes care of the kids herself, during which time she's essentially incapable of anything resembling combat or heavy labor. Men had to do those things because women were too busy preventing the species from dying out.
Short pregnancies + availability of child care (perhaps wet nursing is a full-time occupation, or a community's elderly take care of the children) mean that women's time would not need to be taken up with reproductive concerns, allowing them time to do other things... like train as a soldier. Or carry heavy things around to build upper body strength. If the magic to make pregnancies short and safe exists and is common enough that every village priest or hedge-witch can cast it, there would be drastically less occupational gender selection.
I like this. Perhaps when the deities decided that gender disparity needed fixing and made female muscles stronger than male muscles to compensate for womens' lower muscle mass they also shortened pregnancies to about a fortnight.
I can see various severe problems with that short a pregnancy, And with very severe consequences.
If the pregnancy were 4-5 months minimum it would be better.
There are reasons why pregnancies are that long, one is to keep things in check.
I can see various severe problems with that short a pregnancy, And with very severe consequences.
If the pregnancy were 4-5 months minimum it would be better.There are reasons why pregnancies are that long, one is to keep things in check.
Could you extrapolate so that I can figure out ways to avoid these problems and consequences?
Also, to be fair, the deities also gave males the advantages females had.
Could you extrapolate so that I can figure out ways to avoid these problems and consequences?I can see various severe problems with that short a pregnancy, And with very severe consequences.
If the pregnancy were 4-5 months minimum it would be better.There are reasons why pregnancies are that long, one is to keep things in check.
One of the reasons pregnancies are long is to do population control,
Imagine if you will a nymphomanic woman, gets done every night and gets pregnant 25% of the time.
Over a month (30 days) she'll gain 7 or 8 kids,
She needs to feed, cloth, and raise a very rapidly growing family.
Say they all grow up and half inherited the nymphomanic gene.
That code will quickly spread and multiply.
And resources (food, land, water etc) are not infinite.
Soon you'll have population overload in less a century.
And to a degree inbreding because some genetic codes have been overwritten with a now common gene.
And you'll have swedish rat syndrome or Behavioral sink constantly.
What if the deities anticipated this and made women sterile for several months to a year after giving birth? That would nip this issue in the bud easily. It also still allows for multiple children, because the sterility is temporary, not permanent. It would be sort of like a divinely mandated recovery period.
What if the deities anticipated this and made women sterile for several months to a year after giving birth? That would nip this issue in the bud easily. It also still allows for multiple children, because the sterility is temporary, not permanent. It would be sort of like a divinely mandated recovery period.
Or have a very low fertility rate.
Or Given certain other features and settings in the reproductive system
as a fertility controller.
i.e. still breast feeding a baby, no chance of pregnancy, because the month cycle is not on.
(meerkats have this biological function, I believe)
I like your idea of a fertility controller, especially the specific example. Perhaps a woman cannot get pregnant while lactating or for a couple months afterwards, then is back to being able to have babies?