Why am I not allowed to have stat modifiers for gender in my

Unbroken blocks of text are difficult to read.

are you so socially retarded that you cant even realize that people playing tabletop games sometimes want to make warriors that are female or bards that are male? like jfc i dont think youre racist or sexist or whatever but realism isnt people's main desire when they're playing autistic fantasy games

>>48663370
What if instead it was choose either strength or con to boost, and choose either dex or charisma to penalize? Vice versa for women of course. This would allow the player more freedom to explore male minstrels and women warriors but also acknowledge sexual dimorphism.

> Why is it such a taboo on the tabletop?

I will take you seriously for... three minutes.

The answer is obvious. Games based on fantasy books don't reflect reality, they reflect the conventions in those books, and there's no reason why it matters whether a person that surpasses the limits of your everyday ordinary human is a man who's only doing by a little compared to the average man or a woman who's doing it by a lot.

Ultimately, players should not have to take gender into mechanical consideration, especially if the result is all male warriors and all female sorcerers because of your poorly thought out rules.

Because the only one that still does gender stat modifications from that list is Mount and Blade. Furthermore, any attempt to actually boil down the nuanced differences between musculature, bone density, social graces, and ways of thinking into a couple of pluses and minuses probably going to end up really stupidly done on close examination.

Player characters are generally exceptional, even when they're little shits. Level 1 characters in D&D are still stronger than the vast majority of the teeming masses. If you want to have female NPCs have generally lower strength and higher charisma stats, fucking go for it. Nobody's going to stop you, and nobody will even notice. But for the most part, player characters are going to be freaks of nature anyway. Quibbling about how much they can bench press isn't going to improve the game any.

>>48663465
see
>>48663461

>>48663481
Mount and blade does like its realism.

>>48663297
By the way, I'm fully aware that this post is probably just bait, but I'm an argumentative bastard.

>Bioware games do it

Which Bioware games? Not Mass Effect, Baldur's Gate, Planescape: Torment, Icewind Dale, or Knights of the Old Republic, I can tell you that...

>Why is it such a taboo on the tabletop?

Fundamentally, it's not about sexism. It's about enabling players being able to play the characters that they want to play, without penalizing them for a character choice.

> I just want a game that better reflects reality

99.99% of tabletop games are not and are not trying to be real life simulators.

>and in reality men are more physically adept whilst women are more socially adept

Sure, maybe, ON AVERAGE. But if you're making a character who fights dragons and evil wizards on a daily basis then you are already not creating an average person.

> If I made all men have +1 str, +1 con, -1 dex, -1 cha; and then had women have -1 str, -1con, +1 dex, +1 cha : Wouldn’t this still be equal and fair?

Well, not really, but not for any reasons related to sex, but rather because a -1 penalty might as well not exist, whereas a +1 bonus might as well be a +2 bonus.

Like, okay, the default starting scores are 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8, right? So say I'm building a 5th edition fighter. The numbers on the left will be the default scores, and the numbers on the right the scores after gender modifiers.

Str 15/14
Dex 14/15
Con 13/12
Int 10.10
Wis 12/12
Cha 8/9

Mechanically, the two arrays are identical, since they provide the same boosts. Nothing is achieved.

>>48663549
Mount and Blade does it the best way possible. You get bonuses for your gender, but no penalty or restriction apart from what you can do growing up. Then you get bonuses based on your early life. A guy who's spent his entire life fighting will be the strongest possible at character creation, but a woman who's spent most of her life as a blacksmith will still be pretty reasonably strong, stronger than some effeminate fuck who lived his life as a troubadour. Gender is just one factor of many in how your character turns out.

>>48663578
Its not bait, Im entirely serious

>Fundamentally, it's not about sexism. It's about enabling players being able to play the characters that they want to play, without penalizing them for a character choice.
Ive heard this argument but its kinda shit, if this were true why do we have racial stats? Ever notice that you dont see a lot of half orc wizards?

And yeah, the stat change is extremely subtle, so why is there such an issue with it?

>>48663632
If I have a girl with 15 str at chargen is 14 that much weaker? She's still stronger than the wizard sitting there with 8 str. This by no means makes it impossible for women to be stronger than men.

>>48663673
Nigger, nobody gives a shit if you do this. The only people you have to explain yourself to are the people you play with, and if they don't care, then nobody cares. The only reason to have this thread is to bait out an argument. Everyone here is well aware of that.

>>48663644
>And yeah, the stat change is extremely subtle, so why is there such an issue with it?

Your stat change is all enablement. You would be better off as just granting men +1 STR/CON and women +1 DEX/CHA, The penalties do nothing, and so should be removed: conservation of detail and all that.

> if this were true why do we have racial stats?

Race (as defined in D&D) is far more profound than gender. A male human and a female human are still going to approach the world and view it in basically the same way, but any human and any orc are going to have fundamentally different viewpoints and thought processes.

Further, note that in modern D&D, race *does* only give bonuses, not penalties. The singular exception thus far are races with Sunlight Sensitivity (like drow).

However, fundamentally the point is this: it's just sexist. Why? Because it is. It's been accepted by modern society as being fundamentally sexist. This isn't even a SJW thing because it was a choice that was arrived at decades ago, well before SJW started its modern kicking and screaming.

And, of course, there's the fact that D&D is not and has never tried to be a real life simulator.

>>48663836
Acknowledging reality, in the form of sexual dimorphism, is sexist? Get the fuck out.

>>48663985
>wanting realism in your fantasy RPG
your stats do nothing anyway, why have them?

>>48663644
I don't have any actual orcs or wizards at my game table. Its about player accordance. Unless sexual differences are a focus of my game or campaign, I gain absolutely nothing by including them and alienate potential players. I would much rather use the complexity on something that actually matters for the game.

>>48663297
>I just want a game that better reflects reality

Why? If you want reality go outside. People don't play RPGs because they want to reenact reality, they play them because they want to pretend to be a wizard or a barbarian or a street samurai. In RPGs realism is not an end in and of itself, it's only a means to the end of creating a world that the players can intuitively grasp and immerse themselves in. RPGs are by their very nature abstractions, no matter how sophisticated a game of pretend can't accurately model the real world and it shouldn't have to. Most of the time it is necessary to ignore what is realistic because reality is often unbelievable and usually makes for poor game mechanics. What matters is verisimilitude, internal consistency, and suspension of disbelief, not realism.

File: N2jQjMW.jpg (36KB, 450x338px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 450x338px

>>48663297
>I just want a game that better reflects reality, and in reality
... and in reality...
>>48663836
>However, fundamentally the point is this: it's just sexist. Why? Because it is. It's been accepted by modern society as being fundamentally sexist. This isn't even a SJW thing because it was a choice that was arrived at decades ago

So there you go, it reflects reality very well.

btw, don't check the image, it may be too real.

>>48663985
>is sexist?
Giving maluses for it is sexist. It's like, even, textbook sexism.

>>48663297
Step one:
Be the GM

Step Two:
Enforce Rules

Step Three:
Probably Lose the group.

Simple.

Basically, what I'm saying is, you can have all these rules. No-one will kill you for either enforcing houserules as a GM or suggesting them as a player.
It's just that no-one HAS to play with your rules, and if they're shit, which they are, they may very well just abandon ship.

>>48666764
Why the fuck did you link this?

>>48663297
Simple: roleplaying games are about wish-fulfillment. Most of the customers are male and so they are geared towards letting men play out their fantasies of heroism. However, a part of the player-base is female. And they want their wish-fulfillment to.

PCs do all kinds of heroic stunt that are not very realistic - just to satisfy the player's desires and dreams. In that context, stretching the truth and making females just as strong to enable female gamers to live out their dreams is just fine.

>>48663370
Oh, look, it's another 'I need an optimized build' D&D retard. Kys.

>>48663644
See my post about wish fulfillment. If there were fantasy races in the real world playing RPGs, we'd tone down racial modifiers too.

>>48663673
Well, the classic is -4 STR. And that would be significant.

>>48663724
Well, he's asking why it's not being done commercially.

>>48663836
>However, fundamentally the point is this: it's just sexist. Why? Because it is. It's been accepted by modern society as being fundamentally sexist.
And we should never challenge past agreements, I see. Retard.

>>48666094
Well, that's okay with me. I mean you have HEMAfags rooting for RoS/SoS after all.

>>48666832
If accurately describing reality is sexist, your idea of sexism has to die with a sword in its foul black heart.

>>48667037
>If accurately describing reality is sexist
>malus to con for women
>describing reality
kek

>>48667074
Nice strawman. I didn't say anything about CON. But since you raise the topic: if women are about 10% smaller, sticking the same piece of metal into a man or a woman will produce about 10% larger wounds for females, relative to body size.

Anyway, RPGs clearly do not accurately model the differences between sexes in real life.

>>48663297

fuck your subversive genderism in tabletop games.

This was once a bastion of tranquiltiy and peace and now goons like you fuck this over aswell as if there were no other problem in the world like FUCKING GENDER.

>>48663297
Because the only reason you want them is to stir up crap.

What if i'm playing an already freak woman with more physical strength and stamina than even the most burly men? I'm now unable to out-strength a male character that rolled 18 even though I did too.He has 19, and a +4, I have 17 and a +3.

>>48667269
The Mountain is still stronger than Brienne.

>>48663461
Because then you're still going to get a bunch of male fighters dumping cha and female sorcerers and rogues dumping strength.

>>48663578
The difference between default/gender isn't much. The difference between male/female would be more noticeable.
M/F
Str 16/14
Dex 13/15
Con 14/12
Cha 7/9

>>48667213
>I just want a game that better reflects reality

Yep. The sole reason is to stir up shit.

>>48667366
The Mountain is nearly 8 feet in the book. Brienne is just an extraordinarily tall woman. Not a good comparison whatsoever.

>>48663297
>not allowed
Who's stopping you?
Stop being an underconfident sissy beta cuck.
If you want something in your games? Put it in your fucking games.
Disregard the disapproval of the normies. Disregard the haters. Disregard /tg/ not liking what you like. Disregard peer acceptance.
You want it? Into the game it goes.

>>48663297
I don't know why you are not allowed to do that, OP. I run gender based stat modifiers in my game just fine. My argument for it was that it makes gender selection interesting.

>>48663297
There's no reason not to do it in your own campaign. I mean, there are stat modifiers for race.

>>48667444
The strongest male is still stronger than the strongest female. Very good comparison.

>>48663297

If you really want to have sexual dimorphism, do it through cap adjustment rather than a bonus/malus.

Level 1 males can have a max of 20 STR and 18 DEX, while level 1 females can have a max of 18 STR and 20 DEX.

>>48667586
Average teenage males are stronger than olympic level female athletes.

>>48663297
Why not doing it ? It's up to you and your players only.

Don't get pissed if you get backlash tho.

>>48667783
This. Female PCs should not be generally weaker than male PCs. It's just that females with an upper body strength rivaling the Mountain become too much of a stretch.

>>48667792

Source on that? I find it hard to believe that a mediocre male is stronger than the strongest female.

The short of it is:

a) For a large enough body of players, stat modifiers for gender are probably going to hamper their fun. If someone wants to play a Strong Woman, it's not going to be fun for them if the game's strongest female character can't reach the cool peaks of strength the game offers. Likewise for people who want to play Suave Man.

a.1) On the larger scale, what sex-based modifiers communicates to women who try to enter the tabletop RPG community is that they're different, considered inferior, and/or regarded in terms of female stereotypes. So on the industry level, having sex-based modifiers in the game creates an immediately hostile environment for women, which is counter to the whole "have fun"-bit of sitting around a table with friends and pretending to be elves and dwarves. Maybe not all women experience it this way, but enough women have this experience to consider it a systematic problem of the community.

b) Strength 18 is an abstract measure. For men, it represents, say, the 99.7th percentile. For women, it represents the 99.99999th percentile. Since they both represent the same in-game capacity, why bother assigning a modifier to it?

c) In a lot of systems modifiers that balance out are pointless because you can always just put more points into your weak spots and sell your advantages to get the points you need.

d) Even if your quest for gender-based realism in games isn't sexist, your idea of what this realism *is* is based on stereotypes and antiquated ideas about gender roles, or in other words sexist as fuck. +1 DEX +1 CHA? Women are in general more flexible and have higher manual dexterity than men, yet men are generally faster and more agile. These differences are pretty subtle, and not well-suited for quantifying with a flat modifier.

>>48663297
The +1 cha doesn't work if you're gay/lesbian.
Real life is a lot more complicated than stats.

>>48667476
Does it? It now means that is I want to be fantasy fighter, I'll be male. How interesting is that?

>>48667792
>>48667809
That's because that is the biggest B/S bait ever.

>>48663297

Oh, please. There is no PC boogeyman invading your games. As difficult as the concept may be for you to accept, the writers behind D&D - of their own volition - have simply decided that character gender should not have any bearing on a character's ability scores.

>We all know that theres a huge difference between men and women

No there isn't. Men and women have physical disparities on *average*, but women can and sometimes do possess physical advantages over men. How many /tg/ers are manlets? How many can be overpowered by Isis the Amazon?

The reason these disparities are generally ignored in roleplaying is because there are sometimes exceptions to them. Why establish hard-coded biological rules that prevent these exceptions from ever occurring? Are you telling me that roleplaying a seven-foot Amazon queen is absolutely forbidden? Such a character may be a rare phenomenon, but she's nonetheless a legitimate product of nature.

>Why am I not allowed to have stat modifiers for gender in my games?

I'm pretty sure rulebooks explicitly state that any and every rule can be blatantly ignored at the GM's discretion.

>>48663297
Well OP, I know you don't actually play RPGs because you don't have any friends and you're just desperate to receive validation on 4chan, but we're good at pretending on this board.

Pretend that the girl with 18 Strength would actually have a Strength of 22 if she was a guy.

>>48668669
>realism is sexist
LOL, the denial is strong in this one. Men and and women not competing against each other at the Olympics is also incredibly sexist, I take it? I'm sure of it but guess what? Mother Nature discriminates.

>>48668717
Well, it's interesting that you're an optimum build cancer douchebag.

>>48668861
>Are you telling me that roleplaying a seven-foot Amazon queen is absolutely forbidden?
Ofc not. But she's probably still not as strong as Gregor Clegane. And if a woman needs to play a female PC as strong as him, I have to question her if she isn't stretching belief a bit much. Suspense of disbelief and all that jazz?

File: bait5.png (265KB, 375x523px)

265KB, 375x523px

>>48669021


>I can shoot fireball and challenge the gods
>But hell no, I cannot be stronger than a character in a mediocre pop fantasy show

>>48669292
>a setting features magic & monsters
>this gives me carte blanche to pull all kinds of shit my imagination can conceive
This meme needs to die.

>>48669403
>it doesn't
Do you even play TRPGs?

>>48663297
What is this, bitching for ants?

>>48669424
Just because there are dragons and magic in a setting, that doesn't mean that humans are fundamentally different from in the real world. Do you see my point? Not all spoons HAVE to be magical spoons. Not everything is a fucking +1 imagination item. Sometimes something is just mundane, a copy of the real-world. Like a piece of bread, a stalk of grass, a glass of milk.

>>48663297

Note that bethesda does in the system that has a 0-100 range of attributes and the difference is never more than 5-10 points.

V. Different from a 0-20 system where the difference was minimum of 4 points (which works out to 20 points in an 100 point system

>>48663297
Because we use point buy, not random generation. Random generation would require gender modifiers, not a system built to make balanced heroes. You're a hero, not a representative sample of your gender/race/species

>>48663297
>Why am I not allowed
You are. It is legal. No one is putting a gun to your head. If you're the GM, you make the rules.
But players are also allowed to walk away.
>>>/pol/

>>48663297
I'm going to summarize some of the most common arguments I see in bait thread like this, in the hope that people will invent new arguments. I'll arrange them in order of perceived frequency

>1. It's muh fantasy game, not realism
>2. Sexism/SJW ruined muh game
>3. It's muh hero character, not peasant
>4. Depends on the setting

>>48663297
Men have a higher degree of spatial awareness, but our increased bone and muscle structure in our arms limits fine dexterity, so Dex would have to be split to represent this.

>>48669659
That's true but likewise it doesn't mean that things always have to adhere to real world norms unless otherwise noted, it is fantasy after all. If magic exists why not have the gap between genders reduced or removed if you want to? Just because not all spoons have to be magical spoons doesn't mean there aren't any magical spoons at all out there.

>>48667037
>And we should never challenge past agreements

Sure, you can try, but the issue is that you're challenging past agreements with the exact same arguments that were made in the past. And people back then, despite those arguments, decided that implementing modifiers based on gender for races like humans is sexist, because when it comes to worlds of HIGH ADVENTURE and when talking about player characters, the differences a) aren't meaningful enough and b) inhibit otherwise valid character options for the sake of enforcing "reality" in games where we explicitly don't want the real world to intrude anymore than it has to in order to maintain a coherent game experience.

Should gravity be presumed to work the same? Yes, because screwing with that enough to be noticeable would fundamentally change a LOT in the game world and really mess with a number of baseline assumptions about how things like objects in flight or base height and weight work.

But should the differences between men and women work the same? No. Because removing those differences has no impact whatsoever on the gaming experience.

>>48667155
>if women are about 10% smaller, sticking the same piece of metal into a man or a woman will produce about 10% larger wounds for females, relative to body size.

Hit points do not necessarily represent actual physical wounds. Sometimes they do: falling from a tall building and taking fall damage. But often they don't: your character isn't literally shot full of a dozen arrows when s/he is facing an archer and can't reach them.

>>48667371

Is that a bad thing? Gender roles have existed from time immemorial, you know.

>>48670063
>your character isn't literally shot full of a dozen arrows when s/he is facing an archer and can't reach them.

And yet, on-hit effects like poison trigger on each hit, regardless of your hit point total. So clearly, you are wrong, and the character is, in fact, hit bu every arrow that "hit".

>>48669424
Well, I guess it does. If you're 14.

>>48670061
>what is genre emulation?

>>48670063
>implementing modifiers based on gender for races like humans is sexist
So sexism is a meaningless term? Good to know.
>Hit points do not necessarily represent actual physical wounds.
Nice switch. We were talking about CON. But then again you're bringing about another weak spot of D&D: inseperably mixing HPs derived from toughness with those derived from divine favor.

>>48670110

>gender roles
>not gender rolls

Do you see the problem intrinsic to what you're saying?

>>48670122
Like I said, it varies. In 5E it even explicitly states, on page 196 of the PHB, that "Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck."

>>48670160
>We were talking about CON

No, we're talking about hit points, as long as you're mentioning things like wounds. If you wanted to talk about CON, you'd discuss something like endurance or resistance to disease (which for most classes in 5E is just a straight-up CON check).

>>48669964
This is pretty much the only right answer. It's an issue of group desire than anything else. Are your group members fine with this sort of thing? Then go for it. Are they not? Then don't. Simple as that.

>>48670262
>Like I said, it varies.
So what you're saying is that poisoned arrows are somehow more accurate than non-poisoned ones?

>>48670296
I'm saying that if you want to imagine your character as being stuck full of arrows, that's fine.

If you want to imagine your character having a ton of near-misses, the poison from which can be explained as dramatic scratches from said near misses, that's fine too.

But in either case since hit points are intentionally abstract, using the difference between the physical durability of men and women in real life is silly, since hit points do not always represent physical durability.

>>48670160
>what is genre emulation?
When a game has mechanics specifically built to capture and emulate the feel of a certain genre? At least that's what I found when I googled it.

I don't really see how that helps your point, real life is not a genre. If anything since games like DnD are trying to emulate heroic fantasy, where great heroes with abilities far beyond normal men go on huge adventures and do impossible deeds, then it would make sense to penalize the player as little as possible for his character choices. In heroic fantasy the main characters are far beyond the norm, so the PCs should be too. If I'm trying to design a game where you play as Conan the Barbarian why would I penalize the player if they want to play as Red Sonja or Xena, Warrior Princess instead?

>>48670320
>since hit points do not always represent physical durability.

Moreover they also include luck in DnD 5e; are women inherently less lucky than men?

>>48670355
> If I'm trying to design a game where you play as Conan the Barbarian why would I penalize the player if they want to play as Red Sonja or Xena, Warrior Princess instead?

Or for that matter Valeria of the Red Brotherhood, of whom the narrative of "Red Nails" establishes as someone even Conan would be wary of fighting (not that he'd necessarily lose, per se, just that his victory is no certain thing - it's the only time in all of Howard's Conan stories where we see Conan as unsure of his ability to take someone in a straight-up brawl) and his near-equal in swordplay.

>>48670367
>are women inherently less lucky than men?

They were born into the sex that has to bleed out of the crotch every month for most of their lives, and occasionally push human beings through a small opening in their groin.

Take a guess.

File: Cooking Mama.jpg (106KB, 600x750px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 600x750px

>>48670176

No, there is no problem.

Just like there is no problem with expecting dwarves to be fighters instead of sorcerers, there is no problem with having men be likewise, or women be expected to be sorcerers and rogues instead of fighters. Gender-based modifiers are not different from racial modifiers, and serve the same purpose.

>>48670388
>They were born into the sex that has to bleed out of the crotch every month for most of their lives

Actually menstrual cycle's intensity and regularity is largely determined by body fat, of which a warrior woman likely has little as compared to the average woman. Valeria of the Red Brotherhood might not menstruate all that regularly, and when she does the bleeding is only slight.

>and occasionally push human beings through a small opening in their groin.

Well, at the other end of the spectrum, there is literally not enough blood in the average man's body to both maintain an erection and run the brain at 100% capacity at the same time - and erections are largely involuntary. Plus testosterone is a Hell of a drug that can drive people to do stupid shit for no real reason at all.

>>48663297
I hate to burst your bubble, but you, as a male, aren't as strong as you think you are. Yes, you could beat up a member of a your own species who is naturally weaker than you, but in a realistic fantasy world, there would be no martial heroes. Humans aren't actually that fast, or strong

If you took a human versus an orc or even a half-orc (given how most Tabletop rpgs depict them), the human should lose almost every time.

If you married an orc woman and an anonymous call about spousal abuse came through, the likely stereotype wouldn't be that you were beating her.

Yes, in realistic terms human women are weaker than men, but in realistic terms you couldn't play a hero anyway. In the real world war heroes rescue a few of their friends and don't die, or get really lucky with their rolls and manage to kill more enemies than they logically should.
They get a medal and someday they get to go home. They get to home, and then get to spend the rest of their lives remembering the ones who didn't.

In a realistic fantasy setting an adventurer isn't the rich man in a wonderful fortress, he's that grizzled old man with half a face burned off, his fingers half gone, arthritis wracking his body, and a lifetime full of dead companions stuffed in his brain. He spent his time creeping through dank ruins to find a single chest of treasure, and every time some thread surprised them another one died. One good wound in a far out place and you're dead, traveling back to a priest is likely to take days. They found treasure, but the old man can only do so much as a commoner. He moved to the city, abs stored his gold well, but still he is getting old, and trying to stop thuefs is getting hard, and trying to remember what a con is is getting hard as well. His mind is leaving him as well as his body.

An adventurer's life would suck if it were realistic. Humans are fragile. Yes, even men.
>>48663465
Also this.

>>48663632
>You get bonuses for your gender, but no penalty or restriction apart from what you can do growing up.
But that's wrong. Renown and Honor requirements for a female character to be recognized as a ruler are almost a full third higher, odds of receiving a fief as a vassal are reduced, persuasion odds with nobles are lower, and quest offers are weighted towards less rewarding tasks. Sexism in M&B is pervasive and comprehensive.

>>48670461
I believe the other anon meant physically, specifically in the character gen. Social effects of sexism are of course comprehensive, and one of the reasons my ex-gf loved the game (for what it's worth she was far better at getting fiefs than I was, but that might be because of how much effort it took).

File: 1422895909601.png (655KB, 1912x2832px)

655KB, 1912x2832px

>>48670437
As an addendum to the whole menstrual cycle thing, that's probably only a human thing anyway, the specific result of how we evolved. It's doubtful that dwarves, elves, or others even have them.

OPEN THE FLOODGATES

>>48663297
>Why am I not allowed to have stat modifiers for gender in my games?
You are. The game just doesn't bother telling you to do it because it's your own business and the idea means jack shit for most. Or if you're going point-buy, then just stat your character out in the way you imagine sexual dimorphism works. Nobody has an obligation to include something as silly as gender-based stat modifiers in the system.

>>48670503
That might have just been the choice of Lord affecting grants, since they each have a different rate. If you join the Nords, for example, it doesn't matter how much you do, Ragnar's going to keep just about everything for himself.

>>48663297
unless there is a physical force stoping you from doing it, than no one, it's just stupid, that's all

>>48670367
D&D HP are an inseperable mix of toughness and luck. Yeah, it's not a great system.

I mean if you're doing stats based on gender shouldn't it be more like

>men
+4str
+2con
+2cha
+1int
+2dex

>women
+1wis

If you're looking for realism

>>48663297
I mean, you're allowed to. Just make sure your group's okay with that.

>>48671139
you really need to try harder with your bait

File: zUwqrhM.png (513KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 1280x720px

>>48671139
You gotta work on your b8 m8.

>>48671161
>>48671170
Not bait men simply are better at these things.

The best world leaders, the best athletes, the most intelligent philosophers, artists and writers.

If you can point out an area women are better at than men I'd like to hear it. Just look to history

File: yXcsCK3.jpg (51KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1280x720px

>>48671204
They're certainly better at not paying attention to you than we are.

>>48671204
>best world leaders
Most of the time the "best" were best because leading the world was a mans job, at the moment a women is leading europe and she is doing quait well (let's put the whole trolling aside, we are still the richest and most advanced continent in the world, enjoying the highest standard of living and one of the highest standards of education, second only in the university department to america, and thats only because the fucks steal all our scientists). Also Catherine the great, Margaret thacher, Elizabeth the first to name a few
>writers,philosophers,artists
All for a very long time considered "man's jobs", and it was so because women could not get the right education. Today women tend to dominate in biology and chemistry
>Just look to history
History show that a group of people with little to no accses to education tend to be behind a group who has accses to education
>the best athletes
This one is true, and will be true because of biology

>>48671336
I respect you for replying seriously even if I disagree with you. It can be difficult to get a serious reply to an opinion like that, even on the Internet.

>>48671204
There are a number of studies indicating women have superior immune systems, higher tolerance for stress (both physical and mental), are better multitaskers, and the clear point that 85% of centenarians are female and that on average a female's lifespan exceeds our own by ten years. Some research into education is beginning to indicate females are excelling in the educational system beyond male peers, receiving college degrees faster and more regularly, and that the long running tie in IQ and other standardized cognition tests is beginning to sway in the favor of females.

Essentially we're physically stronger, better at single-task focus and larger. These have enabled previous generations to dominate female populations but as our world grows ever less reliant on big fuckers who can do one thing really well and moreso on smart fuckers who can do twenty things well at once, we're losing out in the long run until selection starts favoring smarter men, which we've seen starting as recently as the mid 1980s.

>>48670061
But if it doesn't adhere to the real world, it is magical okay? You are not listening at all. You are just restating the same shit. If magic exists, so what? If magic exists: nothing. Either it adheres to the real world, or it does not exist and is therefore fiction. If it is fiction, it might as well be magical, it is a pointless distinction for me to make at this point anyway, because you seem to think that if magic exists is some sort of logical predicate which gives the conclusion you want.

>>48671504
I think what you dont get about the whole argument of "you can blast a dragon with a fire ball argument" thing is that the world is allredy very unrealistic and having a "gender gap" for the sake of realism is as retarded as beaing angry that the swords are not made corectly, its fucking magic, a wizard magicked the gender gap away because he could, here is your explanation

>>48670461
Funnily enough, all of these penalties (and the game even mentions it's like a harder mode) don't matter as playing as a female makes the game a ton easier.

After all, you can just woo a lord, marry him, and have a strong-ass guy who will follow you whenever you ask and will also defect to help build your own kingdom

>>48671204
History is written by the victors. It's easy to falsify any information you want with "historical evidence."

>>48663370
Female isn't a race

>>48671409
Don't bother. He's an idiot and a troll.

>>48671534
And there it is again, jesus christ.
Do you not see the irrationality of your claim? Even if it is possible to blast dragons with fire that absolutely does nothing to imply anything else but that exact statement. Why? Because it is fiction, it is magic. NO, a wizard did not do it, unless the setting state they did it. If someone wants something for realism that is not retarded, that is their wish. People use realism in fantasy all the FUCKING time. In fact, I would fucking argue, that the use of realism is almost fucking neccessary, because it is the jarring discrepancy between what is real and what is fiction that makes fiction stand out because we LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD.

>>48663297
>Why am I not allowed to have stat modifiers for gender in my games?
Do you know that ultra realistic and detailed game called phoenix command that was made by literal rocket scientists working for nasa?
The game is a dumbed down version of spectrum small arms released by them, they made phoenix command to try to make people buy their games (but with all splats phoenix command became more realistic than spectrum small arms).
Spectrum Small Arms is then a dumbed down version of rhand morningstar missions a post apocalipse science fantasy (focused on melee).
That is then a dumbed down version of sword path glory (medieval rpg, would be fantasy with a unreleased book about magic and monsters), their first ultra realistic rpg.

This game sword path glory have stat modifiers for genders, basically it influence your size and real strenghth (real strenght is based on size and strenght) and weight.
Weight and size influence endurance stat, so different gender also influence it.
Also guys with less than 24 years old, wont have their full stats, as some example someone at the age of 1 will have 6% of their int.
Anyway, this table have a separated str field, one for male and other for females.


What I want to tell with ALL this, this game is try to be ultra realistic, is made by a real scientist and have different male and female stats.

PS: Rhand morningstar missions also have an size stat, that will be different for males and females. But the game has only one "real strenght" for both sexes, and dont have endurance or the age stat modifier table

File: image.jpg (14KB, 200x200px)

14KB, 200x200px

>>48671139

>>48671409
no but upper body strength though

white knights get out REEEEEEE

>angry_pepe.jpg

>>48663644
>Ive heard this argument but its kinda shit, if this were true why do we have racial stats? Ever notice that you dont see a lot of half orc wizards?
racial stats are also a fucking stupid implementation. Just give your races stuff that's actually interesting (dark vision, small size, scent, stonecunning, racial weapons, that sort of thing) rather than an extra +1 to minmax here and there.
Making gender another thing to minmax only makes the game more of a rulesy clusterfuck for munchkins to exploit, it doesn't really add anything else.

>>48671582
then why the fuck are you whining that you cant do it in your game? The book did not state that there is a fucking diference, so there might not be, if you have such a realism fetish dont ask why you cant do it and just fucking do it. Jesus christ, we are talking about fantasy, where you can talk to a god and trap someones soul and you are whining about lack of gendere diference in stats

>>48663297
Because we really don't give a fuck that you want a realistic game in our escapist fantasy.

Especially if we're actually female. It's little wonder you haven't gotten laid yet, if you're this socially retarded. I mean, men are socially retarded ANYWAYS, you're just taking it further than it ever needed to go.

>>48667155
on the other hand, women tend to cope better with extreme heat and cold, and with low food. So high constitution makes sense for them, what with how it influences Fort saves.
So, now we're giving the ladies bonuses to some saves and penalties to HP. Hell, women tend to have better color vision compared to me, but less spacial awareness. Let's put that in, too!
OORRRR we could just not bother with this much pointless complexity.

>>48671684
I am not whining about it all. I am not even OP. I am just here to point out that this "muh magic" argument is ridiculous because people use it an excuse for fucking everything.

>>48669021
>if a woman needs to play a female PC as strong as him, I have to question her if she isn't stretching belief a bit much
yes, it's not like the rippling amazon barbarian princess is a fantasy stereotype or anything. Oh, wait.

>>48663297
It's kind of weird that tabletop is the most autistic hobby and that /tg/ spends hours arguing about realism when it comes to weapons or fictional worlds but when you bring up something like this they suddenly tell you to not care.

>>48670563
humans are pretty unique in this respect, actually. Most other mammals, even other primates, don't have the same reproductive cycles.

>>48663297
>Why am I not allowed to have stat modifiers for gender in my games?
Ask your group. That is literally all.

>>48671204

The whole english dinasty disproves your bait

>>48663297
>women have less endurance across the board
What the fuck were they smoking when they came up with this.

Why does /tg/ get so easily offended when it comes to women? You guys wouldn't even be able to survive /co/, and that's saying something.

>>48671891
Actually, I have no problem meeting and fucking women since I'm good looking and hide my powerlevels well. I also don't get offended by anything at all, unless it is directly targeted at me,

>>48671820
>Implying you can life with the thought of playing your changed game, without the consent of /tg/

>>48671931
I don't think you understand my post.

I'm talking about how /tg/ goes into an autistic rage whenever someone suggests that women aren't as strong as men.

What about having these modifiers makes your game better? This is the part I'm the most confused by. Is the sense of immersion and verisimilitude strongly damaged by there being a strong female adventurer? How often does the strongest man and the strongest woman in your entire game world encounter each other in ways that the difference is relevant? Are you making new characters frequently enough for there to be an average of your above average PCs that this becomes noticeable on a curve?

If realism is the focus, are you factoring in daily, weekly, and monthly diet for muscle mass, proper sleep/rest between strenuous activity, sea level of birth/training environment to encounter environment for oxygen, active percentages of gut bacteria, flora and fauna that effect sugar and protein distribution? The hundreds of various psychological contextual factors of any given situation that will effect concentration, focus and drive at any given moment? Are you just picking the factors linked to your verisimilitude that are informed by and reaffirm your bias?

Also, you're a grown ass person playing games with other grown ass persons. You can all sit down and talk this out if its truly that upsetting.

>>48671891
too much /pol/ flooding i think, it's just a natural reaction to derail than kill a thred and get it over with at the moment

>>48671958
Maybe because they like to roleplay female knights who fall in forbidden love with little boys?

>>48663297
you are allowed - you're allowed to do whatever the fuck you like to your game, just don't try to barge in on another player's game and tell them that they're playing wrong for not giving a female characters penalties to physical stats or male characters penalties to mental stats
just like you shouldn't barge in and sperg out about how they're doing it wrong for using pretty much any other house rule

if your players don't want to play with you because of it, there's not a whole lot you can do - just like they can't force you to make changes, you can't force them to play.
if you really want to play and your players don't want to, maybe find another group that suits you better.
welcome to the free world.

as far as reflecting reality goes, i think we abandoned that about the time you brought up D&D
you should be more worried about verisimilitude, really - internal consistency.

>>48663297
no, because men are also more dexterous and charming, if you want to be realistic you need to make men better at everything.

>>48663297

>Why am I not allowed to have stat modifiers for gender in my games?
You are, your game, your rules.

>>48671891

/tg/ is entirely made up of female weightlifters.

>>48663297
>Tabletop games require mutual agreement on rules
Then if people are complaining, just capitulate and get on with the game you massive faggot.

>>48671887
Men do have higher endurance than women, though. Maybe women are better with temperature or disease or some shit but none of that really matters in Elder Scrolls.

>>48663465
underrated post.

File: commiserations from Ghostbusters.jpg (85KB, 634x416px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 634x416px

>>48672473
>Men do have higher endurance than women

Not in the bedroom or the box officer

File: oh-wait-youre-serious-let-me-laugh-even-harder.jpg (40KB, 479x356px)

40KB, 479x356px

>>48671336
>at the moment a women is leading europe and she is doing quait well
bwahahahaha. jesus christ.

>>48671582
Fantasy RPGs are about emulating mythic reality.

>>48671592
I ran Aliens RPG, a dumbed down version of Phoenix Command. I enjoyed it.

>>48671771
She's still physically weaker than Conan/Mountain/etc. And if she isn't, it is a stretch. Not everyone wants that in their game. Suspension of disbelief and all.

>>48671806
>>48671958
Well, it's fawning. You can get far with that with quite a few women. Who doesn't like having their asses kissed?

>>48672911
>emulating mythic reality

File: 1444883703846.gif (3MB, 360x199px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 360x199px

>>48672911
>jpg version
>'weknowmemes' watermark

>>48672364
thats a world i want to live in

>>48672911
>I ran Aliens RPG, a dumbed down version of Phoenix Command. I enjoyed it.
Yes it fun, and its 100% compatible with the FULL phoenix command rules.
The same apply to the living steel rpg and phoenix command.

>>48672990
You heard me right, son.

>>48673094
You observed that correctly, bud.

>>48673361
Even have Lawnmower Man tucked away unplayed. But Aliens is really fun even without having Aliens as the main antagonists. Quite deadly though.

>>48670412
Fucking thank you, if the modifers come out even I don't see how its sexist. The genders being different doesn't make one inferior.

>>48672012
I have a low suspense of disbelief, I run a homebrew where HP almost never increases and most characters die after two hits in melee combat. We've already establishes that strong women and weak men can still exist with a +1str +1con -1dex -1cha. The change would be menial, applying the inverse formula to women balances it, both genders have the same modifiers and are therefor balanced. Even if you bring up that cha is a shit stat, dex is a god stat, so that evens out too. Im not a sexist, if I was id be self hating because I don't have testicles. Men and bigger than women, sexual dimorphism is real, pretending it isn't does bother me.

>>48671958
See >>48672017
Absurd reaction but /pol/s been shit posting for a while now (and anons on other boards have admitted to such) that /tg/'s first reaction to ANYTHING remotely /pol/ is REEEEEEE!GET OUT! regardless of the legitimacy of their points

>>48673102
/tg/ does have a comparatively high female population, at least going by voice chat from online games I've seen

>>48675783
This, I just wanna talk about fantasy settings and games involving them
I don't give a shit about the evils of the SJWs or whatever is happening in Europe and the moment any of that is even hinted at people won't shut up about it, declare the thread a shitpost thread regardless what it was before, and either chase away any and all /tg/ related discussion or drown it under irrelevant shit

>>48663297
It makes people uncomfortable when you start talking about how we're all born different. There are a lot of people who believe, in spite of scientific studies, that we're all equal and it's our upbringing and life choices that make us different. Men and women are different. Black people and white people are different. But as soon as you say it out loud, you're hate-mongering in the eyes of our ever-growing over-sensitive culture.

Some people who talk that way genuinely are just trying to cause problems. I believe you when you say you're not, but ultimately, bringing those things up doesn't enhance the gameplay for most people. It just acts as a painful reminder that life isn't fair and we don't have full control over who we are, in a game that's meant to be all make-believe and driven by choice.

That said, I personally find those kinds of things fascinating. The variations between different groups of organisms within a whole. Likewise, I also find the idea of researching and cataloguing information for the purposes of integrating it realistically and accurately into a game system a fun endeavor. Whether it makes it a good game or not is a different question, though.

>>48669659
Yes, your point is valid, however, you must consider that the PCs are most likely, the character equivalent of the magic item, as a 1st level barbarian can run on an Olympic level, is sturdier than the vast majority of people, is stronger, than the vast majority of people, and can also works themselves into a rage.
On the caster side of things, sorcerers are literally magical beasts by nature, and posses charisma that would rival some of the greatest diplomats.
So, PCs are always special in some way, yet the commoners aren't, so, you can just say that the hunter is a strong, well built man, and his wife, a seamstress, is a social butterfly, with deft apt fingers.
But, again, these are just my suggestions, you don't have to take them by heart.

>>48671582
I have the sinking feeling that you have actual, no joke, Asperger's Syndrome.
Also, are barbarians magical?
Because they can take many fatal hits, not just fatal in real life, but in-setting, fatal to the masses, they can also, run like an olympian, lift things many times their weight, and wield many weapons with mild competence, and one specific weapon with great skill, and slip into a rage where all of this is amplified, and no normal person in the setting, can do this

Here is the question: Why do you assume that female of ALL races are weaker than the men?

With all the fantasy races and all the odd humanoids, it's somehow men who are always the stronger gender? It would come across less weird if there was actually some notable difference between races rather than 'Apply race, apply same gender mods'.

>>48669973
The problem is, muh hero is a valid point, as PCs are exceptional people, usually many times more competent than the NPCs at basically everything.
If you want gender to have an effect in your game, be subtle about it, have the NPCs with appropriate stats for their professions and roles within their social structure, and make women have roles you think they are better suited for, like the mother with a good bit of charisma for diplomacy, intimidation, and bluffing her children, while getting a bonus to them specifically, a very fit lumberjack, who's also a family man, who gains proficiency with axes when defending his family, along with slipping into an equivalent of berserker rage, things like that would be generally pretty interesting to see, and would still give the players freedom for chargen, ok?