The Forge Archives

Archive => Indie Game Design => Topic started by: Ben O'Neal on May 08, 2004, 12:14:13 AM

Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: Ben O'Neal on May 08, 2004, 12:14:13 AM
Before I continue, I want to keep this topic strictly within the bounds of mechanical discussion. "X won't work, or won't correlate with your goal", that sort of thing. Discussion about my goals per se should be directed here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11095).


Ok, so my goals are to include gender and social class as meaningful chargen decisions and ones which can be explored through their implications for your character and play. Neither of these choices should be The Focus of the game, merely two of the many. They should have a continuing effect throughout the character's advancement, but should not be more pervasive than species. For the sort of background I'm working from, you can read this (http://eclipse.netlab.com.au/Eclipse-PTR.pdf).

I'll deal with gender first, then social class, and the two are independant.


Gender
Through discussions in RPG theory, I have concluded that my current setup does not do enough, and what it does do, it does wrong. So here are my ideas:

Attributes
One point in an attribute will cost 3 GP, and players start with 200 GP (GP = Genesis Points, they are the currency for dhargen and advancement). Attributes cost 3 GP to raise one point, skills cost 1 GP to raise one point.

Both males and females will have a different set of attribute modifiers, such that a modifier of +1 would mean that for every attribute point you bought in that attribute, you would get 1 for free. A modifier of +2 means that every attribute point you buy gives 2 free points to that attribute.

Gender modifiers stack with species modifiers (btw, the numbers in the link I gave above are irrelevant to this point because I will be re-working the numbers). If my gender gives me +1, and my species gives me +2, then when I buy one point in an attribute (costing me 3 GP), I will be increasing that attribute 4 points.

My preliminary breakdown is thus:
Males
Pow   =+2
Con   =+1
Spd   =+1
Agi    =0
Cry   =+1
Flu    =+2
Fla    =+1
Bea   =0
Inf    =+1

Females
Pow   =0
Con   =+1
Spd   =+1
Agi    =+2
Cry   =+2
Flu    =+1
Fla    =+1
Bea   =+1
Inf    =0

What I feel that this setup implies is that it is easier for a female to become more agile than a male, as it is easier for a male to develop greater power. In no way does this prevent either males from developing greater agility, or females from developing greater power.

The assumption of why it is easier to develop certain areas relative to others is not implied to be genetic OR societal, but will be explicitly defined as a combination of both.

I am toying withe the idea of allowing one +2 modifier to be swapped with any +1 modifier, and two +1 modifiers to be swapped with any 0 modifier, and this could conceptually account for "exceptional" or characters or those who "deviate from the norm".


Skills
As mentioned above, skills cost 1 GP to buy 1 point in. All skills are open to all players except a select few which require abilities be taken first.

At the moment, I feel that because attributes affect skills, any gender differences in skills would be redundant or too powerful. However, I may be mistaken, and I am open to suggestions. If I was to add anything, it would probably look something like this:

Females will be able to add their Charm skill to any attempts to haggle with a male shopkeeper or Coerce a male of their own species.

Males will be able to add their power modifer to any use of their Insult skill against other males of any species.


Abilities
Some abilities will cost more depending on gender. This particular aspect is already included, but I will extend it to a few more abilities and some I haven't added yet. In these cases the decision as to which gender pays more is larely in accordance with the sort of stereotypical logic employed in the works of Robert Jordan. For instance male magic users pay less for access to fire and earth realms, whereas female magic users pay less for access to air and water realms, and spirit costs the same for both.


The Rest of the World
Gender will play a role in the character's place within the world, in terms of the organisations, and occupations within them, that are available. Some occupations will be exclusive to males, some to females, and a bunch will be accessible to both. I haven't completed mapping out all the organisations or occupations within them yet as it is a lot of work, so I can't comment any more specific than that. The amount of work is amplified by the need to generate organisations and occupations and progression ladders for not one, but several species. Humans first though.



Social Class
Social class already carries with it significant consequences. However, I will include more to the effect of duplicating nutrition and favourable training, as well as other things, in the form of additional attribute modifiers.

Attributes
Social class modifiers stack with gender and species modifiers. If gender affords +1, and social class affords -1, then your modifier is 0. Your attribute modifier cannot be lower than 0, so even if your species and social class combined give -4 to an attribute which is given +1 by gender, your overall modifier will still be 0.

Upper-Class
Pow   =+1
Con   =+1
Spd   =0
Agi    =0
Cry   =+2
Flu    =+1
Fla    =-3
Bea   =+1
Inf    =+1

Middle-Class
Pow   =0
Con   =+1
Spd   =0
Agi    =0
Cry   =+1
Flu    =+1
Fla    =-1
Bea   =0
Inf    =0

Lower-Class
Pow   =+1
Con   =-1
Spd   =0
Agi    =+1
Cry   =-1
Flu    =0
Fla    =+2
Bea   =0
Inf    =-2


Skills
Social class has no impact on what skills are available to players. Perhaps I should change this, but I really like the idea that "everything is accessible, but somethings are just harder to get". I don't see how I could make skills "harder to get".


Abiltiies
Social class determines how many ability points character's start with. These are really what defines you character's coolness.


Everything Else
Social Class already has a strong impact on your place in society.



Deneument
The attribute modifiers are, I feel, a very strong deal. I see the potential for munchkining, if my understanding of the term as "playing around with options in order to get maximum efficiency with complete disregard for character concept" is correct. I'm not sure if I mind this so much, so long as it doesn't lead to other players becoming disgruntled. I may have to get a friend of mine to create a program which can analyse all possible permutations of gender, social class, and species, to help me figure out if I am getting the right combinations I want from each, and make sure no-one gets any stupid modifiers (like +5 or something higher, which would create insanely powerful characters).

So, questions:
Does this idea strike anyone as mechanically problematic?
Does what I have presented (or hinted at) cohere to the goals I outlined at the beginning of this post?
Is there any way I could better achieve my goals? (suggestions ranging from "change this and that" to "how about this whole new approach" are most welcome).

Thanks,
-Ben
Title: Re: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: Andrew Martin on May 08, 2004, 05:22:47 AM
Quote from: Ravien
Males
Pow   =+2
Con   =+1
Spd   =+1
Agi    =0
Cry   =+1
Flu    =+2
Fla    =+1
Bea   =0
Inf    =+1

Females
Pow   =0
Con   =+1
Spd   =+1
Agi    =+2
Cry   =+2
Flu    =+1
Fla    =+1
Bea   =+1
Inf    =0

Males are usually bigger than females; so why doesn't your game system include rules for this?

And, according to the ladies in the office I work in, males are more attractive to them than other females. Gay men find other men attractive, and lesbian women find other women attractive. So why isn't this reflected in your game rules?

Instead your game rules indicate in the game world that women are more beautiful than men and men are uglier than women.

You seem to indicate that gender is an important focus for the game, yet you have no rules for gay and lesbian characters, and no rules for transgender characters. If gender is a focus for your game, then surely these kind of characters are important in the game?

Quote from: Ravien
Upper-Class
Pow   =+1
Con   =+1
Spd   =0
Agi    =0
Cry   =+2
Flu    =+1
Fla    =-3
Bea   =+1
Inf    =+1

Middle-Class
Pow   =0
Con   =+1
Spd   =0
Agi    =0
Cry   =+1
Flu    =+1
Fla    =-1
Bea   =0
Inf    =0

Lower-Class
Pow   =+1
Con   =-1
Spd   =0
Agi    =+1
Cry   =-1
Flu    =0
Fla    =+2
Bea   =0
Inf    =-2

Currently, your rules for social class indicate to players that social class is fixed and immovable, indicating that your game world is worse than India with it's caste system. Your game world automatically prevents characters like Conan going from the lowest social class to being a king, the highest social class. Your game also prevents stories like The Prince and The Pauper; The Prince can easily proclaim: "look at my Crystal (Cry) attribute; it's far higher than the Pauper's Cry!" and by the sizable difference it has in the game world, he can be assured that his claims are more believable than the Pauper's claim to be the prince.

Is this your intent? Is it your intent that characters in the game world reflect the average man or woman?

Or is it your intent that players have characters who are: "dashing young nobles", "smarmy swashbuckling rogues", "powerful sorcerers", "lethal and stealthy hunters", "priest who know more than they let on, and always manage to be 2 steps ahead of everyone else", "deadly and feared psionic assassins"? People who definitely aren't average?
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: Ben O'Neal on May 08, 2004, 09:05:16 AM
QuoteInstead your game rules indicate in the game world that women are more beautiful than men and men are uglier than women.
Not from what I see. The rules say that women are more able to be more attractive. It's not so much a matter of "how the other gender sees you" as it is about "how beautiful you yourself can become". The only argument against this is that of "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder", but that is largely debateable, and beyond tha scope of this topic (I'm actually a moderator on another forum so if anyone wants to debate anything at all with me I'll gladly set up a topic and provide a link, just pm me).

The stats and rules in Eclipse are defined specifically in relation to the character, not the society of the character. Power measures objectively how much physical strength you have, not how strong you are relative to other members of your society. In this same way, beauty measures your actual beauty, both external and internal. This is no less plausible than measuring constitution.

Regarding bisexuals/homosexuals/transgenders/whatever, I have thus far only presented preliminary rules for straights. This isn't a matter of non-inclusion, more that I'm not up to there yet because I haven't figured out the norm yet.

QuoteCurrently, your rules for social class indicate to players that social class is fixed and immovable, indicating that your game world is worse than India with it's caste system.
You mean, exactly like medieval europe? Seriously though, what part of what I presented implies that social class is impermeable? Part of the advancement rules are specifically dealing with advancement through the social classes, both with upwards mobility and downwards. When you change social class, you take on its modifiers, reflecting your newfound ability to obtain nutrition, access knowledge, and comand respect, or vice versa if you move down.

Quote...People who definitely aren't average?
Ummm, I can see nothing in my presented mechanics that makes players have average characters. There is every possibility that they can completely defy the average in all ways. Chargen is point-buy, and if you spend points in areas that your gender/social class/species designates as beneficial, then you get free points for doing so (kind of like a father who tells his daughter that for every dollar she saves, he will put a dollar in her account. But nothing stops her from spending it instead). How does this make them average, or limit their options?

QuoteYour game also prevents stories like The Prince and The Pauper; The Prince can easily proclaim: "look at my Crystal (Cry) attribute; it's far higher than the Pauper's Cry!" and by the sizable difference it has in the game world, he can be assured that his claims are more believable than the Pauper's claim to be the prince.
Crystal is memory and learning. Do you find it unreasonable that children of wealthy nobles possess greater education and thus have more learning capacity than children of peasants? Do you find it unreasonable that members of the lower-class have less Influence because they have never had access to the years of being taught how to command other people?

I understand that PC's may be outside of the average, and nothing I can see stops that, at all. But certainly it is reasonable to say that a peasant will find it harder to achieve the same aura of authority than a noble.

In my view, by defining what is and what isn't easy to accomplish, I provide a benchmark by which people can more easily create truly extraordinary characters. A noble male who is a terrific swordsman is nothing. A peasant girl who is his equal is extraordinary. A noble who has the influence to command armies is respectable, a peasant who rises to challenge him is heroic.

I'm saying: "Here is your world, now prove yourself."

At least, that's how I can see it. But at the very least, I can't see anything which in any way limits characters or forces them to be average.

-Ben
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: Walt Freitag on May 09, 2004, 12:21:03 PM
You've got a big loophole here.

Players will reap great effectiveness rewards by choosing combinations of gender, social class, and species in which the modifiers align. The advantage comes because the positive modifers stack up, while the negative modifiers are pegged at zero. Players will have to choose between one of these optimum combinations, or a big effectivness penalty. For each species, there will be a clearly advantageous gender and social class. (It's "gnome illusionists" and "halfling thieves" all over again, except with gender and social class instead of character class.)

- Walt
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: Ben O'Neal on May 09, 2004, 10:06:07 PM
QuotePlayers will reap great effectiveness rewards by choosing combinations of gender, social class, and species in which the modifiers align. The advantage comes because the positive modifers stack up, while the negative modifiers are pegged at zero. Players will have to choose between one of these optimum combinations, or a big effectivness penalty. For each species, there will be a clearly advantageous gender and social class. (It's "gnome illusionists" and "halfling thieves" all over again, except with gender and social class instead of character class.)
So?

I have no problem with certain combinations being more conducive towards certain outcomes. In fact, I think such a thing takes great strides towards emphasising the differences between species, social classes and genders. In the world of Eclipse, it is not the case that two different species will have an equal proportion of psionics/sorcerers/warriors/whatever. The sargni have incredibly few magic users of any kind, but it's not impossible. The keresin have very few warriors, but they too aren't impossible. And within the keresin, if one were to find a warrior, they would most likely belong to the upper-class. Also, neither the keresin nor the sargni use gender modifiers, as both genders within those species are practically identical except for superficial things (like eye colour or whatever).

My only problem would be certain combinations being the only way to achieve an outcome, which is not the case.

The focus of these mechanics, I feel, is not averages. It is the norms and factors that produce averages. It is easier to follow norms than to break away from them, and even once broken away, it is a difficult path to follow. But guess what? It is also rewarding, because you get to stand out from the crowd, and acheive your goals. It's a long and hard road for a man to become as agile as a female might achieve, but when he gets there, it is all the more rewarding for the challenge required, even though his score might be the same.


Do you suggest that social class, species, and gender should have no effect whatsoever on character effectiveness? Don't all games rely on some sort of effectiveness differential for different choices? Isn't that part of what makes a game fun?

-Ben
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: Valamir on May 09, 2004, 10:40:48 PM
I believe the point that Walt was trying to make is that relying solely on personal feelings of accomplishment to motivate players to take a non ideal combination is going to result in a fairly limited variety of characters that see actual play.  

Is it possible in AD&D to arm your elf with a mace or an axe?  Sure.  But what proportion of AD&D players in all of history have done so as compared to the overwhelming proportion who will arm them with an bow and long sword.

If that's what you're looking for, then great.  But Walt was pointing out that if you make certain combinations innately more effective than other combinations that very very few players will ever select the less effective combinations.  Depending on how extreme the relative effectiveness is, this may get to the point where even having the other combinations as an option is pointless, and you could focus your game solely on those effective combinations.
Title: Status, etc.
Post by: btrc on May 10, 2004, 07:58:04 AM
I agree with Valamir and similar posters on the tendency of the modifiers to result in min-maxing characters. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is "ceilings" on levels. That is a woman with training can be stronger than -many- men, but odds are very high that the absolute strongest man is stronger than the absolute strongest woman.

It -might- also be that in terms of beauty that the most attractive woman might be more so than the most handsome man. That is, if you take "ultimate woman" and "ultimate man", both women and men might rate the female character as more "attractive".

Ceilings may crimp some roleplayers style (whadda ya mean I can't get any better?), but an upper limit on some physical characteristics based on gender is realistic. It might also apply to some social/status characteristics as well.

Greg Porter
BTRC
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: contracycle on May 10, 2004, 09:29:17 AM
The stacking of modifiers might be useful if the optimum sets become the default character classes.  The non-optimum sets can then be used for NPC's, giving them slightly mook-like properties.

QuoteSkills
Social class has no impact on what skills are available to players. Perhaps I should change this, but I really like the idea that "everything is accessible, but somethings are just harder to get". I don't see how I could make skills "harder to get".

I think there is a huge difference in skills training imposed by social class in most pre-modern societies.  Without a public schooling system or similar, there is little base-line learning that everyone can expect to develop, and conversely most learning is specific and local.  Social class will determine which specifics are found in your environment and what your locality is; these will significantly influence skill availablity.
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: John Kim on May 10, 2004, 01:38:10 PM
This is carried over from the Mechanical Gender Differences thread on RPG Theory, and in particular was in response to an excellent post by Russell.  

I agree with Russell's post, and I'll add in a bit more specific application: i.e. making something more expensive point-wise does not linearly result in rarity. If you have players who are very concerned with cost-vs-effectiveness, then even a minor increase in cost past the c-vs-e ratio of other options will mean they never take it. Conversely, if you have players who are more experimental or exploratory, they may take options regardless of the cost. In a real game there is no guarantee this will balance out.

I have frequently seen this in action. In some games, the players will all go for the unusual options even with penalties, resulting in a PC group which is a collection of freaks. Conversely, making the unusual cheap doesn't mean that players will take it.

Quote from: RavienDo you suggest that social class, species, and gender should have no effect whatsoever on character effectiveness? Don't all games rely on some sort of effectiveness differential for different choices? Isn't that part of what makes a game fun?  
Well, no, not necessarily.  I've played in plenty of games like GURPS, HERO, and others which have no classes or other groupings for characters.  Similarly, I had no mechanical differentiation in stats or skills between genders, cultures, or social classes in my Vinland game.  Instead, players just took the stats they felt were appropriate for the character as they played them.  It worked fine.  No one made overly burly/muscular women or literate skraelings.  

Increasing costs doesn't disallow things.  So, for example, in your system I can make an burly female noble warrior -- but she will be more one-sided and less effective overall than other PCs (i.e. her defining trait will be Power, because I don't have the points to buy up other attributes).  Do you want this character in your game?
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: Ben O'Neal on May 10, 2004, 10:56:49 PM
QuoteIs it possible in AD&D to arm your elf with a mace or an axe? Sure. But what proportion of AD&D players in all of history have done so as compared to the overwhelming proportion who will arm them with an bow and long sword.
Is it possible for a girl to pick up a gun and become a serial killer? Sure! But what proportion of girls in the history of the world have done so? Is it possible for a guy to crosstitch a unicorn riding a rainbow? Sure, but what proportion of guys in the history of the world have done so?

These things are reflective of choice, not capability. Choice is what I want to preserve above all things.

If a certain combination is better than others in a particular area, then great! I love the choice between "Jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none" thing. I like the option that it presents. Sure, many people may just choose to be a master in one area. Great! But some are gonna want to be a jack-of-all-trades, and that's great too.

QuoteI believe the point that Walt was trying to make is that relying solely on personal feelings of accomplishment to motivate players to take a non ideal combination is going to result in a fairly limited variety of characters that see actual play.
In my experience, these are the only type of players I've seen. When given the choice between more effective or cooler, my players have always chosen cooler, and had a blast playing with it. Actually, thinking back I can recall one player who was trying to find the most effective option, but when she saw how the other players were having fun talking about how cool their character was going to be she quickly joined in.


Greg, I have considered the option of cielings, and you do raise some good points. I'll have to have a bit of a think about it. Maybe I might wait till play-test to see what emerges. Thanks


Gareth, indeed, classes may well logically arrise from optimum sets, except that your stats say nothing about what your character does (well, practically nothing specific). Your "class" would be given by your occupation and rank in different organisations. One psionic character could be a spy, assassin, advisor, judge, detective etc. Hell, that same character could be a bartender if they wanted. So "class" doesn't really exist.

But your point about skills was exactly what I was thinking. Here's a thought, what if instead of 1 GP=1 skill point, the default was 2 GP=1 skill point, and certain skills would become "social class skills", where, say, Swordplay was an upper-class skill, and, say, Sniper was a lower-class skill, reflecting the relative experience that such classes would have with the respective weapons. I think I may do this, at it would add another dynamic to the choice of social class.

Also, no-one picked me up on this (shame!) but now that I think about it, the upper-class should not have pow = +2, because the amount of actual physical labour they do is miniscule compared to that of a lower-class person. Instead, their enhanced nutrition would only increase constitution. So I'll be changing that, making lower-class characters have more power and less constitution, whilst the upper-class have less power and more constitution.

QuoteIncreasing costs doesn't disallow things. So, for example, in your system I can make an burly female noble warrior -- but she will be more one-sided and less effective overall than other PCs (i.e. her defining trait will be Power, because I don't have the points to buy up other attributes). Do you want this character in your game?
Well, with the above change it would make more sense for her to be a peasant. But yeah, I do want to see this sort of thing pop up. The exceptions are what makes things interesting. And her "one-sidedness" would simply be her being a "master of one trade". I think she would be a great character to explore. I mean, think about it. With the few facts that arise from her chargen choices, the simple description "strong female peasant warrior" conjures up images of why she is exceptional, how she is different, possible reasons why she is different, and even what her goals may be in play. And it says all of this because of the mechanics underneath. This is what I mean by making gender meaningful.

QuoteI have frequently seen this in action. In some games, the players will all go for the unusual options even with penalties, resulting in a PC group which is a collection of freaks. Conversely, making the unusual cheap doesn't mean that players will take it.
Cool, sounds fun.

But for the record, these mechanics are not meant to result in rarity. They are meant to make gender meaningful. I would be perfectly happy if every character challenged the norms, because now they are meaningful for having done so. They are more integrated into the game world for having decided to set themselves apart from it.

Also, for the record, right from the get go I wanted players to bring their own balance to the game. A sorcerer can kill a man in one action without the man having any chance of defending himself, but to do so may result in the sorcerer being knocked unconscious and thus being at the mercy of anyone else around. So the balance is in the player's hands. I saw a perfect example of this when I ran a session for my 3 sisters and brother. He had managed to cut off one of their heads, and had injured the other. It was clear that he would kill her in his next blow, so she mustered all her psionic power and tore his body apart in a shower of red mist, rendering her unconscious for the next few hours, during which time she was kidnapped by the last player left alive (don't ask why they turned on each other, it's a long but funny story).

So in short, I don't care about imposing balance on player choices, so much as I care about making choices enticing and interesting. Players make their own balance.

-Ben
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: Mike Holmes on May 11, 2004, 03:16:13 PM
QuoteBut for the record, these mechanics are not meant to result in rarity. They are meant to make gender meaningful. I would be perfectly happy if every character challenged the norms, because now they are meaningful for having done so. They are more integrated into the game world for having decided to set themselves apart from it.

Does this extend into play? I'm wondering how advancement works - can a character get more beautiful in play? If so, then I think that you'll have made gender meaningful in a simulative sense in play. If not, then all you've done is to make it a meaningful choice in chargen. Once in play, two character with the same strength have the same strength no matter what it cost them to get it. The only effect that might be felt is in what they "didn't take" in order to pay the larger cost - a pretty nebulous and hard to notice thing.

If, OTOH, the player had to pay for their unusual natures with something concrete that was likely to come into play, then the effect of gender would be more felt.

Mike
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: Ben O'Neal on May 11, 2004, 11:18:52 PM
Hey Mike. Yes, these rules were specifically designed to work for advancement and chargen. For example, on your character sheet you would have "Attribute[Gender+SocialClass+Species mod] : Actual Score [score modifier]", so that a human male peasant might have "Power[+4] : 22 [+11]". So during the game, as he advanced, everytime he spent one point on power, he would get 4 for free (5 in total). All attributes can be increased during play.

QuoteIf, OTOH, the player had to pay for their unusual natures with something concrete that was likely to come into play, then the effect of gender would be more felt.
Hmmm, I'm not sure what you mean by "concrete...likely to come into play", but it sounds intriguing. Would you care to elaborate? I'm a sucker for anything that adds another fun tactical layer to play!

As to advancement and how it works, it's gonna need playtesting (I think that it will need to be sparse to maintain the challenge and longevity of the game). But it's rather subjective and involving. When a player's character does something "very risky/heroic/exceptional/extremely benevolent or extrememly malevolent", then they (or someone else in the group) can call for a vote. A vote must be decided unanimously in two "rounds" of reasoning. The vote is about how risky/heroic/whetever the action(s) was, and how much of a reward it deserves. The reward will be in points to attributes, and sometimes reputation points. That's the short short version. Without levels or distributing rewards based on useage (which both have problems for play), it's really hard to quantify advancement, but I'm certainly still open to any suggestions.

The only other idea I've had (which sounds really fun to play but takes away the "human" focus of advancement and merely begins to reward exploration or following what the GM wants) is to invent a type of gem/stone/artifact which are coveted throughout the world for two reasons: 1. they can be "absorbed" to increase a persons power; and 2. they can be used to control other people's minds (one use, probably for a limited amount of time). In this way, this gem/stone/artifact resource would become the focus of play (hence doing what the GM wants on order to find these things) and would require a sacrifice between either advancement or powerful in-game use. I think it's a cool idea, but I'm not sure it's exactly what I want for Eclipse. ie: I don't want Eclipse to become "Tomb Raider".

-Ben
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: contracycle on May 13, 2004, 05:56:06 AM
Quote from: Ravien
One psionic character could be a spy, assassin, advisor, judge, detective etc. Hell, that same character could be a bartender if they wanted. So "class" doesn't really exist.

What I'm suggesting is that the optima produce a sort of class de facto.  I understand that your system is not prescriptive that way, but if the optimum choices are easy to spot then you might as well assume that they will be used.

Quote
Also, no-one picked me up on this (shame!) but now that I think about it, the upper-class should not have pow = +2, because the amount of actual physical labour they do is miniscule compared to that of a lower-class person. Instead, their enhanced nutrition would only increase constitution. So I'll be changing that, making lower-class characters have more power and less constitution, whilst the upper-class have less power and more constitution.

I'd be wary of that - some ruling classes have had physical power and prowess as part of their defining characteristics.  Think of all the states that have had military requirements for citizenship, ort a ruling class defined by its combat abilities - knights, equites, samurai etc.  All of these might legitimately get a power boost.  OTOH, cosical class like this merges with profession to some extent, as one usuallyt limits the options of the other.
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: Maarzan on May 13, 2004, 02:35:26 PM
I have looke dshortly at the pdf I have seen some deviations from what was shown here.So I will keep my comments to the post here.

From what I have seen I suppose the intend was to create a believeable world for exploration with a special ephasis on society.
Unfortunately some points seem to run awry to this intend.
Please correct if my take on the intend was false.

Attributes.
Having seen different tables I won´t comment details. While I like seeing a ganetic base and the abilty to improve based on your aptitude looks good.
But I wouldn´t include the attribute gender base modificator into mental attributes limits because the difference seems to be in the distribution but not in the limits.

Size is really lacking, even if it wouldn´t be a classical attribute. Size would probably stack, sometimes positively sometimes negatively with other attributes that would have probably to be readjusted.
For example women have in reality a higher CON regarding most subpoints but they lack size when it comes to damage and toxic resistance. Size is also awkward if you want to use stealth or rapid direction changes (acrobatics) and is probably leading to your perception on higher female AGI (Ever thought of dividing hand manipulation and body manipulation)

Personally I would think a diminishing return would be nice when investing in higher attributes.

Beauty is an attribute I can´t see the way you see it. In my eye beauty is strictly a question of culture. This is also shown by the changing ideals over time and culture.

Social class
The social classes look a little bit broad stroked. I would imagine a much broader influence of culture on it, especially with different races.
That the social class should have no influence on skills isn´t understandable too. Social class in a formalize society like most ages on humanity was primary about rights and access to ressources. And this includes the right ojn certain jobs and the funds to do the training.

Another question would be the continuing effect of class after character creation. If someone was trained from youth for a class fitting job this will have an impact on the way he thginks and works. Most probably much more than a change of class that was triggered by an unrelated event.
But why should the noble poet get a bonus to leadership later when he never used the option to train in his youth and probably never left his noble household. (as indicated by his GP split)

Jobs/classes
I miss this construct when everything else gets formalized. This would solve for example the problem whether the upper class has a power bonus. The noble knight probably has one and the noble academicaly trained minster probably not. But the serve bound man-at-arms probably has this bonus when his master had the wisdom to feed and train him for best effort.

Skills
A fancy idea of mine is that skills and skill use should indicate changes of attributes. Have you thought about buying skills only and dedicating these points then to the attributes connected?

So much this time.
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: Ben O'Neal on May 14, 2004, 12:23:34 AM
QuoteI'd be wary of that - some ruling classes have had physical power and prowess as part of their defining characteristics. Think of all the states that have had military requirements for citizenship, ort a ruling class defined by its combat abilities - knights, equites, samurai etc. All of these might legitimately get a power boost. OTOH, cosical class like this merges with profession to some extent, as one usuallyt limits the options of the other.
Yeah. I've tried really hard but short of giving every single possible profession in every single possible combination of species/gender/social class it's own set of everything, I can't think of a neat way of taking everything like that into account. And don't get me started on how hard it would be to take into consideration people changing professions and social class over the course of their life. Like so many people have been so willing to profer: I need to draw the line somewhere between game and reality. I draw it here, right between "Not Quite Enough" and "Far Too Much".

QuoteI have looke dshortly at the pdf I have seen some deviations from what was shown here.So I will keep my comments to the post here.
Yeah, this post represents the most recent ideas, and totally overrides the pdf.

QuoteBut I wouldn´t include the attribute gender base modificator into mental attributes limits because the difference seems to be in the distribution but not in the limits.
Already done. There are no limits (well, none based on gender). The mechanics only represent distribution -or likelihood/potential- of attributes. All character's have a limit of 100 for all attributes.

QuoteSize is really lacking, even if it wouldn´t be a classical attribute. Size would probably stack, sometimes positively sometimes negatively with other attributes that would have probably to be readjusted.
For example women have in reality a higher CON regarding most subpoints but they lack size when it comes to damage and toxic resistance. Size is also awkward if you want to use stealth or rapid direction changes (acrobatics) and is probably leading to your perception on higher female AGI (Ever thought of dividing hand manipulation and body manipulation)
Actually, size does exist, but on a large scale. The ~1' difference between males and females is nothing compared to the difference between one size category and the next. "Small" is half the size of "Medium", which is half the size of "Large" and so on. These sizes carry with them differences in Toughness and Damage Reduction/Amplification.

Regarding hand manipulation and body manipulation, there is no point in Eclipse.

QuotePersonally I would think a diminishing return would be nice when investing in higher attributes.
Already done. Have a look at the table in the "Attributes" chapter. The left column is your attribute, the right is your modifier. The modifier is what is used in-game, thus diminishing returns.

QuoteBeauty is an attribute I can´t see the way you see it. In my eye beauty is strictly a question of culture. This is also shown by the changing ideals over time and culture.
Actually beauty is very much innate, and I'm sure that should you look, the only way beauty standards have changed over time is according to social class, where it's been shown that more "plump" females are more likely to produce male offspring, and thus become more desirable for upper-class men in societies where females marry upwards. If you're interested in this just PM me and I'll send you a few papers you can look into.

Beauty also measures internal beauty, such as how nice you are to other people and how friendly you are. This is why it can be raised (it doesn't make much sense to grow incredibly physically beautiful over time).

QuoteThe social classes look a little bit broad stroked. I would imagine a much broader influence of culture on it, especially with different races.
That the social class should have no influence on skills isn´t understandable too. Social class in a formalize society like most ages on humanity was primary about rights and access to ressources. And this includes the right ojn certain jobs and the funds to do the training.
They are broad necessarily (see the top of this post). Skills are in the pipeline (see one of my earlier posts). Certain professions will be only open to certain social classes.

QuoteAnother question would be the continuing effect of class after character creation. If someone was trained from youth for a class fitting job this will have an impact on the way he thginks and works. Most probably much more than a change of class that was triggered by an unrelated event.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. If you are implying that a change in social class should not carry with it a change in the person, then you are right, it doesn't. It carries with it a change in how that person can now improve themselves. They don't lose points, they just find them harder/easier to come across now that their class has changed.

QuoteBut why should the noble poet get a bonus to leadership later when he never used the option to train in his youth and probably never left his noble household. (as indicated by his GP split)
Because he is a noble. Other nobles will treat him like a noble (if a bit of a pompous/stupid one), and the lower-classes will treat him as a noble. Just the mere fact of his station is enough to carry weight in Eclipse's society.

QuoteI miss this construct when everything else gets formalized. This would solve for example the problem whether the upper class has a power bonus. The noble knight probably has one and the noble academicaly trained minster probably not. But the serve bound man-at-arms probably has this bonus when his master had the wisdom to feed and train him for best effort.
Again, without specifying different complete sets of everything for every profession, this becomes hard to model. But professions do have minimum requirements, so it becomes a non-issue.

QuoteA fancy idea of mine is that skills and skill use should indicate changes of attributes. Have you thought about buying skills only and dedicating these points then to the attributes connected?
No I haven't considered this. An nteresting idea though. But I couldn't possibly hope to introduce it without gutting a huge chunk of my game and re-working everything again.

QuoteSo much this time.
Thanks for your input! Appreciated.

-Ben
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: Mike Holmes on May 14, 2004, 09:31:44 AM
Quote from: RavienHmmm, I'm not sure what you mean by "concrete...likely to come into play", but it sounds intriguing. Would you care to elaborate? I'm a sucker for anything that adds another fun tactical layer to play!
Well, I didn't have anything specific in mind. The only thing that pops into my head is to do something standard like Hero System disadvantages, or GURPS disads? Familiar?

On the subject of beauty, do you have some chart for "conversions" of beauty scores? That is, if beauty is somehow genericized, then different cultures will see characters differently given different standards of beauty from culture to culture. Or do all cultures in the game somehow share the same standard of beauty?

Mike
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: Ben O'Neal on May 14, 2004, 10:03:52 AM
QuoteThe only thing that pops into my head is to do something standard like Hero System disadvantages, or GURPS disads? Familiar?
Ahhh. Nah. These are all well and good, but I don't think the "disadvantage" system fits with the "feel" of Eclipse. Especially if they were only in place for negotiating with the gender rules (or maybe social class rules as well)... as they would feel "out of place" or just "stuck on" like a lonely post-it note.

QuoteOn the subject of beauty, do you have some chart for "conversions" of beauty scores? That is, if beauty is somehow genericized, then different cultures will see characters differently given different standards of beauty from culture to culture. Or do all cultures in the game somehow share the same standard of beauty?
Nope, no chart. A few reasons. 1. beauty is an abstract measure of your own internal and external beauty, and not a measure of how other people view you (though it is used to interact with others, it does not itself measure their reactions). 2. no other attribute has that much attention paid to it, despite how other attributes like influence may change according to culture (some might feel that aggression is paramount, whilst others might think that confidence, subtlety, guile, or even reputation would be the most important things for influence). 3. the table would be useless, as it would merely be ascribing an adjective to a static modifier; ie: in one culture being plump might bring you a +1 modifier, whilst in another being grotesquely skinny might bring you a +1 modifier. In both cases though, you are only getting a +1 modifier. Does this make sense (it does in my head...)?

So basically I feel that GM fiat would handle cultural perceptions with far more aplomb than any table would, simply by roleplaying how NPCs react to the PCs based on the player's descriptions of their characters, and perhaps ascribing bonuses/penalties to social rolls based on that.

-Ben
Title: Attributes and ceilings
Post by: btrc on May 14, 2004, 10:56:13 AM
A question and a comment:
Question: I saw a mention that attributes top out at 100. One of my personal feelings abut game design is that you shouldn't design beyond your abilities. That is, don't use numbers that are smaller than any reasonable chance of "simulating game reality". If you're using a percentile scale, this implies that your confidence in the "simulation" is accurate to a 1% level. I mean, if your margin of error is 3%, then 1% divisions are effectively meaningless and just add numbers for the sake of adding numbers. I've seen far too many percentile based games with combat modifiers of +13% or some specific skill with a -8% chance in situation X, and I wonder exactly which hat they pulled those numbers out of.

On the other side of the argument, percentiles have a better "feel" in some cases. If I say 65% on d%, most people have a better understanding of the chance than if I say 13 or less on d20. I tend to lean towards the "less numbers are better" side. Just a personal bias.

Comment: If you were looking for a way to handle 'ceilings' in a simple and useful way, apply your racial/social modifiers to the upper bound. So, if you have a +5 in something, then the ceiling for you is 5 points different than it would be for someone with a +0 in the same characteristic. So, if women had a strength penalty, this would lower their ceiling, and thus the strongest man would always be stronger than the strongest woman.

Greg Porter
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: Lxndr on May 14, 2004, 11:27:46 AM
You know, I don't really mind sexual dimorphism.

But... wow.  A man and a woman both put 10 points into Inf (I don't know what Inf is, sorry).  The man now has an Inf of 20, and the woman has an Inf of 10.  And that's with the smallest possible modifier, a +1.

Am I reading that right?  That sort of numerical divergence feels like a MASSIVE difference to me.  A man has 200% the capacity of a female for Inf (once again, whatever that is, and I'm picking Inf on purpose because of my total ignorance of what it is).  Well, not really capacity per se, since they top out at 100.

Let's take an upperclass man vs. a lowerclass man, and now look at Fla (flavor?).  For every 1 point the upperclass man spends on Fla (for he bottoms out at 0), the lowerclass man gets 4 points.  So they both spend for 10 points, and UC man gets ten, and LC man gets 40.  Once again, that just feels like an absolutely massive difference.

Maybe it works out in play, but my gut feeling is that there's a severe mismatch of proportions here.  What you have looks pretty much like a geometric progression, which feels excessive (just gut feeling here, since I haven't seen how this corresponds to the rest of your system).  Each +1 is a "+100%", and that just doesn't feel plausible.  

Can you allay my concerns on this point?
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: Mike Holmes on May 14, 2004, 01:06:45 PM
Quote from: RavienAhhh. Nah. These are all well and good, but I don't think the "disadvantage" system fits with the "feel" of Eclipse.
Neither do I. That's why I mentioned it dismissively. But I think the idea is sound overall. Have something happen to counter the effect, instead of the charge.

Quote1. beauty is an abstract measure of your own internal and external beauty, and not a measure of how other people view you (though it is used to interact with others, it does not itself measure their reactions).
I keep trying to wrap my head around this idea. It's internal, yet it affects people's reactions. I'm not getting it.

Quote2. no other attribute has that much attention paid to it, despite how other attributes like influence may change according to culture (some might feel that aggression is paramount, whilst others might think that confidence, subtlety, guile, or even reputation would be the most important things for influence).
Not getting at all what you're saying here. Who's paying attention in your sentence? People posting here, players, characters?

Quote3. the table would be useless, as it would merely be ascribing an adjective to a static modifier; ie: in one culture being plump might bring you a +1 modifier, whilst in another being grotesquely skinny might bring you a +1 modifier. In both cases though, you are only getting a +1 modifier. Does this make sense (it does in my head...)?
Again, not seeing what you're saying, no.

QuoteSo basically I feel that GM fiat would handle cultural perceptions with far more aplomb than any table would, simply by roleplaying how NPCs react to the PCs based on the player's descriptions of their characters, and perhaps ascribing bonuses/penalties to social rolls based on that.
This I agree on, in that it's a very complicated thing. That is, what is beautiful to one culture is downright ugly to another (lip rings come to mind). So, given that beauty is so completely subjective from culture to culture, the only thing that I can see a single rating meaning is the beauty that the character has in their own culture.

Flatly, I don't believe that there's such a thing as objective beauty. As they say, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

Mike
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: Ben O'Neal on May 14, 2004, 11:58:47 PM
QuoteI keep trying to wrap my head around this idea. It's internal, yet it affects people's reactions. I'm not getting it.
Ok, I'll do my best: :)

Have you ever seen someone, who, despite their physical features being not particularly striking, draws your eye and seems attractive? How about seeing someone who, despite their physical features being quite remarkably stunning, just doesn't "do it" for you? That's part of what I mean by internal. The other part is "innate", as in external, but a property of the individual, not the perceptions of the viewer. Some people, regardless of what culture you stuck them in, would be considered flat out physically ugly by practically everyone, and the reverse is also true.

For example, to the best of my knowledge, Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, is an ugly mofo in any language, but he obviously does it for someone (his wife), but I'd find it a bit of a stretch that he does it for her physically.

Brittany Spears is kinda like the other end. Personally, she does nothing for me, but ask any man from anywhere across the world if she is physically attractive and the answer will likely be an extremely high proportion of "yes".

Now, this is just a mental excercise. I don't have studies to back this up. But this is how it makes sense to me, and this is how the game reflects this reasoning. Also, the world of Eclipse is not Earth. It is a reflection of how I see it in many ways, and a complete divergence from it in others, but it is not Earth.

QuoteNot getting at all what you're saying here. Who's paying attention in your sentence? People posting here, players, characters?
None of the above. Me. I was referring to how much in-text/rule attention I was devoting to the attributes. If I designated more detailed rules for just one attribute, it would seem odd that the other attributes were left out. Sorry, I should have made that clearer.

QuoteAgain, not seeing what you're saying, no.
Sorry. Ummm. Ok, maybe an example of the table might help. Say I was choosing to create a character from X culture. I look up X culture on the table, and I see that this culture values feminine-looking women, and affords them a +1 potential bonus to beauty. Then I'd see the column next to it saying that in culture Y fat women are valued more and they are afforded +1 potential bonus to beauty. Then I'd think "what the hell is the point of this table if every culture gives +1 potential bonuses?" The only function it might serve is to suggest to players how their character should look to be considered beautiful in a given culture -a decision they could make without the table. Did that make sense that time? Or am I misinterpreting the type of table you were referring to?

QuoteThis I agree on, in that it's a very complicated thing. That is, what is beautiful to one culture is downright ugly to another (lip rings come to mind). So, given that beauty is so completely subjective from culture to culture, the only thing that I can see a single rating meaning is the beauty that the character has in their own culture.
Yeah, that. Except in my experience beauty is not so subjective, but on that issue I think we can agree to disagree. After all, many games have beauty stats that don't vary as a function of cultural location.



Greg, Eclipse is a d20 dice system. Attributes max a at 100, which, given the diminishing returns table, equates to a max attribute modifier of +40. This sort of modifier is far beyond what would be "realistic". We're talking +10 below Angel stats here (THE most powerful beings beneath Gods, having mods around +50). Eclipse is a game of journeying from being "only human" to becoming "fucking unbelievable".

Regarding ceilings... I dunno. I like that everybody, low-born or high-born, male or female, human of whatever, cannot exceed the same boundaries.



Alexander, regarding what happens when you put points into a stat... yeah. Hence I doubt any two characters will ever put the same amount of points into the same stat. To put 10 points on one stat to get 20 out necessitates that you will suffer in another stat. The idea being to put more points into those stats that you don't have a potential mod for, and put less points into those with high potential mods. Also bear in mind that species and social class stack. After all, 1 point in an attribute costs 3GP, and you only get 200 (maybe 250, depends on how things turn out when I make a few characters), and that needs to buy skills too.

Fla=Flame=emotional aptitude/compassion. You're right, it is a massive difference. But the size of the difference means nothing unless it adversely affects play.

See, the modifiers represent potential. If two completely different people put the exact same amount of effort into something, then they will almost certainly end up getting a different amount out of it. For instance, I can eat as much as I want and excercise once in a blue moon and never put on weight. Another person may have to excercise every single day and watch what they eat just to maintain a particular body weight.

Ideally, my original hope was to implement a much smaller potential bonus. However, as you noted, +1 is as small as I can make it. If I make it into fractions then things become hairy and I don't want that. If I say "for every X points you spend, you will get Y for free", then I risk losing acuity, because every player will only ever stick in the amount of X necessary to get Y, no more and no less. Plus it becomes much more difficult to keep track of during play, because players would have to know how many points they raised an attribute last time, to know how many more points they need to get Y.

I'll try to come up with a few characters over this weekend to see how it works. Feel free to do the same :)

-Ben
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: Maarzan on May 15, 2004, 01:45:12 AM
Quote from: Ravien
Quote
But why should the noble poet get a bonus to leadership later when he never used the option to train in his youth and probably never left his noble household. (as indicated by his GP split)
Because he is a noble. Other nobles will treat him like a noble (if a bit of a pompous/stupid one), and the lower-classes will treat him as a noble. Just the mere fact of his station is enough to carry weight in Eclipse's society.


-Ben

This was probably one of the worse exapmles I could have used. Try again:
Take a young noble. In his young years he could have used his position to get a decent education. But instead he was hunting, partying and taking part on martial games (i.e. he didn´t put points into crystal). Now he is grown up and on un urhent mission. He and his troup of retainers are in an old library and they have to learn as much about their abysal enemies as they can. And according to your rules as looks if he would learn more than his lower class clerk retainer.

My idea is that the classes would be a fitting abstraction of the unplayed young years. But after that the result of these young years would rule the advancement characteristic. Points like nutrition and resources will still influence the advanecemnt vastly too, but I fear to put this into the abstraction of social class will often bite with percepted reality.
The knighted commoner on the battlefield will have to wait probably for years before he can earn the fruits of his improvement with several of the attributes if the war continues.

Someone mentioned bachground options. This could deal with things like the offspring of well done middle class having access to good education and nourishment too or dealing with poor nobles.

The problem with beauty is that probably too many people have a common understandment of the term at odds with your definition. Probably renaming it into the good old charisma does a better job?

Regarding granulary of the scale. You probably can´t measure influences exactly enough to go into single percents. But the skill score itself can be described at this level and from my experience it counts at this level. I know that for example in sports that some meager looking percent can make the difference between certain victory and no chance at all under controlled circumstances.
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: Ben O'Neal on May 16, 2004, 11:25:52 PM
QuoteTake a young noble. In his young years he could have used his position to get a decent education. But instead he was hunting, partying and taking part on martial games (i.e. he didn´t put points into crystal). Now he is grown up and on un urhent mission. He and his troup of retainers are in an old library and they have to learn as much about their abysal enemies as they can. And according to your rules as looks if he would learn more than his lower class clerk retainer.
A few points here: my understanding of nobility in medieval times was that children couldn't just "choose" to hunt party or whatever. Families back then, and especially noble families, were fantastically strict with their children. A noble child would have no choice but to learn exactly what the father wanted them to learn, and do what the father wanted them to do.
Secondly, regarding the noble learning more: no. If they have less points in an attribute, then they are lower, regardless of potential. Searching through a library will not increase an attribute, so no, the noble would not learn more. But if, when they next reached a point of advancement, they chose to put their points into crystal, then yes, they could raise their crystal higher than a lower class person could.


But if the potential bonuses for advancement and chargen are incongruous with people's perceived realities, can someone else suggest a better way to model the effects of social class and shit? I mean, if I don't model it, then I feel that these options become meaningless and have no place in a game. It is also incongruent with my perceptions of reality to say that two people, born of different gender in different social classes with different access to resources could potentially be the same.

So any suggestions at all about a better way to approach these issues would be very much appreciated.

-Ben
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: contracycle on May 17, 2004, 03:52:28 AM
Quote from: Ravien
Then I'd think "what the hell is the point of this table if every culture gives +1 potential bonuses?" The only function it might serve is to suggest to players how their character should look to be considered beautiful in a given culture -a decision they could make without the table.

Yes.  But by providing the table, you are formalising that statement; thats is a suitable and valid use of a table.

QuoteA few points here: my understanding of nobility in medieval times was that children couldn't just "choose" to hunt party or whatever. Families back then, and especially noble families, were fantastically strict with their children. A noble child would have no choice but to learn exactly what the father wanted them to learn, and do what the father wanted them to do.

Hmm, for some, but theres no particular reason to believe this was universal.  However, I would say that being raised in that milieu will reinforce a sense of identity, personal value, and pride, purely as a feature of the psychological environnment.
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: Mike Holmes on May 17, 2004, 10:31:32 AM
I get the beauty idea now. I still think that even "inner beauty" would be culturally subjective in the real world, but if it's universal in your setting, that works just fine.

Mike
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: Jason Lee on May 17, 2004, 12:52:26 PM
I don't know if this has been brought up yet (in any of the many threads), but you've got the the great Chun Li fallacy going on by giving women an agility bonus.  Yes, I do blame fighting video games for this perception.

Women, generally, have greater joint flexibility, but it comes at the cost of increased risk of hyper-extension.  They also have a lower center of gravity, but the usefulness of that is offset by structurally weaker knees (knobby knees are more common in women) and less efficient thigh muscle leverage because of hip displacement.  Plus, the generally lower muscle mass to inert body weight ratio hinders agility (muscles move the body).  I'd make the costs the same on Agility for men and women, if not transfer the bonus to men.

I see you've got the traits nicely balanced, and the great Chun Li fallacy may be an expectation you want to cater too, but it's not particularly realistic.  Pet peeve of mine, but to each his own.
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: Andrew Norris on May 17, 2004, 01:48:42 PM
Quote from: Ravien
Alexander, regarding what happens when you put points into a stat... yeah. Hence I doubt any two characters will ever put the same amount of points into the same stat. To put 10 points on one stat to get 20 out necessitates that you will suffer in another stat. The idea being to put more points into those stats that you don't have a potential mod for, and put less points into those with high potential mods. Also bear in mind that species and social class stack. After all, 1 point in an attribute costs 3GP, and you only get 200 (maybe 250, depends on how things turn out when I make a few characters), and that needs to buy skills too.

Ravien, I'm not sure that I follow you here. Are you saying that players will optimize their choices such that they don't bother to put any points into the attributes that are costly for them? Or only a handful?

If so, I see a problem. You're saying that the modifiers represent slight variances in potential across gender and social groups, and yet you're encouraging these differences to be vast for PCs.

If I understand you correctly, then, female characters aren't expected to buy much physical strength at all, as even a +1 modifier greatly increases its cost. That seems to directly go against the idea that you presented  that modifiers represent a difference in potential. It seems that an average group of created PCs is going to usually stick very close to the "stereotype" for their respective origin. Is that an intended effect?

On another topic,

Quote from: Ravien
But if the potential bonuses for advancement and chargen are incongruous with people's perceived realities, can someone else suggest a better way to model the effects of social class and shit? I mean, if I don't model it, then I feel that these options become meaningless and have no place in a game. It is also incongruent with my perceptions of reality to say that two people, born of different gender in different social classes with different access to resources could potentially be the same.

Question. Does something have to be modeled to have a place in the game? I tend to disagree.

If something is part of the text of the game, but has no mechanical rule governing it, it's probably setting or color, but it still exists. Even hardcore Sim games contain lots of content that's "part of the game" without having rules for it. For example, if one nation uses curved swords while another uses straight swords, that might be relevant to the game without there being any in-rule differences between the modeling of the two types of swords.

I can't see a problem with just having text in your game saying "In this world, males are usually stronger than females" or "Nobility are better-educated than peasants" and leaving it at that. In play, the players and GM could come to a consensus as to whether that meant for them that no female character would take a high strength, or whether they'd take it as a guideline for NPCs only, or just ignore that detail completely.

I personally have no problem with saying that two people from different backgrounds might turn out very similar. It sounds like it could even be an interesting story. You take that as unrealistic. If you were to state your preferences as guidelines within the setting, and not as mechanical rules, we can both get what we want.

I hope you don't take that as off-topic. It's just that you asked for other suggestions of how you might handle this type of thing, and I think moving it from System to Setting is a reasonable option, one that a lot of games have used.
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: Jason Lee on May 17, 2004, 07:06:30 PM
I didn't touch the mental differences before, because I was sort of avoiding it.  Anyway, here is a list of neurological differences between men and women, courtesy of The Society for Women's Health Research (http://www.womens-health.org/)

QuoteThe structure of the brain and the way it functions is different in women and men.

•  Adolescent brain development appears to be different in males and females. Males age 6-17 years have been shown to display more prominent age-related decreases in gray matter (the part of the brain than allows us to think) and increases in white matter (which transfers information between distant regions) than females. These changes in brain composition appear to be linked to developmental processes in which nerve cell connections are "pruned" in gray matter and made more efficient (myelinated) in white matter. The more dramatic changes seen in males may be related to the different effects of estrogen and testosterone on the brain.

• Women have smaller brains than men, with women having more gray matter and men having more white matter. This finding may help explain why women are typically better than men at verbal tasks, while men are typically better than women at spatial tasks, as well as why the sexes perform equally well on intelligence tests in spite of males having larger brains.

•  Although men and women have been shown to process some language tasks similarly, in other aspects of language processing there are significant sex differences.

•  Imaging studies of the living brain indicate that in women, neurons on both sides of the brain are activated when they are listening, while in men, neurons on only one side of the brain are activated.

•  Men and women appear to process single words similarly, but in the interpretation of whole sentences, women use both sides of the brain while men use one side.

•  Boys have a higher incidence than girls of developmental language disorders, such as developmental dyslexia. Despite these differences during childhood, it is not clear whether adult women have better verbal skills than men.

•  Men and women process spatial information differently.

•  When negotiating a virtual reality maze, both men and women use the right hippocampus to figure out how to exit. However, men also use the left hippocampus for this task, while women do not, and women also use the right prefrontal cortex, while men do not.

•  In an imaging study, men were found to activate a distributed system of different brain regions on both sides of the brain while performing a spatial task. Women, however, activated these regions on only the right side of the brain.

•  Women appear to rely on landmarks to navigate their environments, whereas men tend to use compass directions.

•  Males typically have twice as many neurons as females in the cerebral cortex, the gray matter that covers the majority of the brain's surface. However, females appear to have twice as many connections between neurons as males, leading to an overall equal number of neural processes.

•  Boys are more prone to mental retardation and learning disabilities than girls. This may be due to the fact that male fetuses require the maintenance of higher numbers of nerve cells in the cerebral cortex than female fetuses - early damage to the male developing brain could result in higher losses of needed neurons.

•  As the brain ages, the amount of tissue mass declines and the amount of fluid increases. This effect is less severe in women than in men, suggesting that women are somewhat less vulnerable to age-related changes in mental abilities abilities.  However, women are more prone to dementia than men, perhaps because any disease that leads to loss of neurons is likely to cause more connections per neuron to be lost in women.

•  The cerebellum, an area of the brain important for posture and balance, and the pons, a brain structure linked to the cerebellum that helps control consciousness, are larger in men than in women.

•  Some functions of memory appear to be different in males and females.

•  Higher rates of blood flow in certain portions of the brain are associated with increased memory of verbal tasks in women, but not in men.

•  Compared to men, women have been shown to be better at remembering faces.

The above is full of a lot of medical jargon, though I think they are nice about explaining most of it.  Point one in particular I think needs a little explaining.  Myelinated nerves transfer signals faster, but that shouldn't be read as 'men think faster'.  Likewise, though grey matter is 'thinking meat' that doesn't mean women have more thinking ability.  It's complicated, and I'm not knowledgeable enough to speculate about what that neurological difference actually means for cognitive function.

The hippocampus is part of the brain and plays a role in memory formation of personal experiences. It also probably pitches in for spatial memory and navigation.

Dementia has a specific medical definition (loss of cognitive function - Alzheimer's Dementia is the most common dementia), but I don't think that's relevant to the discussion here.

*****

So, given the data you can make up your own mind, though I think if you wanted to accurately reflect the cognitive differences between men and women, Spatial and Verbal should be your primary mental divisions.  Probably not a real "fun" division for a roleplaying game though.
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: NN on May 17, 2004, 09:50:31 PM
I think the best way to model "the effects of social class and shit" is a mixture of skill availablity, languages, money, contacts, and knowledge rather than attributes.

If you want nobles to be in charge, dont fuss about with their leadership score. Just make them in charge.
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: Ben O'Neal on May 17, 2004, 11:48:47 PM
Ok, a few good points here:

Cruciel (1st post): Regarding flexibility, you are correct on average, but not in the extremes of human potential. I direct you to this abstract (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1434582&itool=iconabstr), and to lines 5 and 6. Basically you're right, that in average and the extremes of potential, when all other factors are accounted for (such as training, diet, and age), males are significantly superior to females in all physical measures except flexibility. And the reason, as you noted, is because we are just built differently. PM me if you want more studies, or you can just search for your own.

Andrew, I'm not sure I understand your concerns. IF players stick to the "stereotypes", then they will definately suffer in other areas. If they don't want to suffer in those areas, then they have to divert from the stereotype.

QuoteQuestion. Does something have to be modeled to have a place in the game? I tend to disagree.
Well, IMHO, yes and no. It depends on the relative importance of that thing to the game. In a world where gender has a strong influence on place in society and how you interact with other people (like any world similar to earth), then I think it needs to be modelled. If one nation uses curved swords and another uses straight ones, this is not going to have any significant impact on anything except sword choice. So I feel that if the aspect in question is significant in the world, it should be modelled. If it is not-so significant, it can be setting. Make sense?

QuoteI hope you don't take that as off-topic. It's just that you asked for other suggestions of how you might handle this type of thing, and I think moving it from System to Setting is a reasonable option, one that a lot of games have used.
Not at all, I did ask for it and I appreciate your input. It is a reasonable option, but one which, as I just stated, is not in accord with my basic design philosophies.

Cruciel (2nd post): That was kinda funny. I love reading stuff from places like "The Society for Women's Health Research", because it's always funny to see what they leave out, which is often just as if not more important than what they include. frex:
QuoteWomen have smaller brains than men, with women having more gray matter and men having more white matter. This finding may help explain why women are typically better than men at verbal tasks, while men are typically better than women at spatial tasks, as well as why the sexes perform equally well on intelligence tests in spite of males having larger brains.
...but white matter/grey matter means absolutely nothing when it comes to verbal and spatial tasks. This "finding" means didly squat except that information is processed faster in a male brain than in a female brain, and that more complicated processing can occur in a female brain than in a male brain. The reason females perform better at verbal tasks has nothing to do with white matter/grey matter, it has everything to do with the left hemisphere bias and overall lower degree of lateralization in a female brain. The reason men perform better in spatial tasks has everything to do with the strong right hemisphere dominance and strong lateralization of the brain.

Another one of my favourite omisions is the "Boys are more prone to mental retardation and learning disabilities than girls." claim minus the "but they are also vastly ovre-represented at the other end of the scale too, to the tune of a 13:1 ratio". I love that omission, it's hilarious. But I could give a 5000 word essay on this, so I'll stop here. Suffice to say that there were quite a few missing pieces and a few falsified claims.

QuoteSo, given the data you can make up your own mind, though I think if you wanted to accurately reflect the cognitive differences between men and women, Spatial and Verbal should be your primary mental divisions. Probably not a real "fun" division for a roleplaying game though.
Yeah I could, and yeah it would make roleplaying odd, to say the least. But the differences in fluid and crystal ("logic and analysis" and "learning and memory") are also accurate (see this topic (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11196) for some references).

NN: But I don't just want nobles to "be in charge", I want the authority of a noble to be able to be challenged. Eclipse isn't about setting hard and fast rules about what is and isn't possible, it's about saying this is how things are, what are you going to do about it?

Also, those suggestions for "social class and shit" are already implemented. Attributes were just another thing that was influenced.


But all of this has really become moot, unfortunately. Over in this theory thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11233), Ralph (Valimir) suggested breaking Eclipse apart and turning it into a bunch of smaller, more focused games, each with their own mechanics devised especially for the pursuit of that focus. Originally, Eclipse was meant to be a BIG RPG, but logistically, tearing it into smaller parts is much easier to achieve. They will all share the setting, but they will have unique mechanics. Maybe social class and gender may find their way into some of these things, but as long as the mechanics of each game are designed solely for the pursuit of that game's focus, gender and social class probably won't even enter into it, and species will almost never be an option. Maybe one day I will bring it all together again, and make a BIG RPG out of it all, but that would be a while away.

So in closing, thanks for all your posts everyone, your input has been helpful and appreciated. My next topic may very well be the beginning of a new game, focused on one aspect of Eclipse. From Ralph's and Andrew's posts in that thread, I will probably start with: "You are members of an ancient and secret guild, whose goal is to ensure the fulfilment of ancient prophecies, and you are being sent to a recently discovered country to establish a new base of operations. You play members of the dark and feared guild of assassins known as the Wraiths, whilst also maintaining the public façade of local merchants", and see where I go with that.

Thanks,
-Ben
Title: [Eclipse] Gender and Social Class
Post by: Jason Lee on May 18, 2004, 02:05:06 PM
Well, you seem to know where you're going, I just wanted to touch briefly on your reply.

As for the Agility thing, given that we both agree on the flexibility issue, the question becomes:  How important is flexibility compared to strength/structural stability in regards to the tasks of dodging, jumping, climbing, gymnastics, and acrobatics?  (I love the layout, BTW).  I would definitely say it is important, but of significantly less importance than other things.  From my perspective, flexibility does not equal to Agility as you have it defined.

Quote from: Ben...but white matter/grey matter means absolutely nothing when it comes to verbal and spatial tasks. This "finding" means didly squat except that information is processed faster in a male brain than in a female brain, and that more complicated processing can occur in a female brain than in a male brain. The reason females perform better at verbal tasks has nothing to do with white matter/grey matter, it has everything to do with the left hemisphere bias and overall lower degree of lateralization in a female brain. The reason men perform better in spatial tasks has everything to do with the strong right hemisphere dominance and strong lateralization of the brain.

They are paraphrasing, because the list is supposed to be easy to read.  Their source is:

QuoteGur RC, Turetsky BI, Matsui M, et al. Sex differences in brain gray and white matter in healthy young adults: correlations with cognitive performance. J Neurosci. 1999;19(10):4065-4072.

The paper is readily available online, the following is an excerpt (most of the paper is too dense for me to follow, but this is somewhat readable).

QuoteSex-related differences in behavior are extensive, but their neuroanatomic substrate is unclear. Indirect perfusion data have suggested a higher percentage of gray matter (GM) in left hemisphere cortex and in women, but differences in volumes of the major cranial compartments have not been examined for the entire brain in association with cognitive performance. We used volumetric segmentation of dual echo (proton density and T2-weighted) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans in healthy volunteers (40 men, 40 women) age 18-45. Supertentorial volume was segmented into GM, white matter (WM), and CSF. We confirmed that women have a higher percentage of GM, whereas men have a higher percentage of WM and of CSF. These differences sustained a correction for total intracranial volume. In men the slope of the relation between cranial volume and GM paralleled that for WM, whereas in women the increase in WM as a function of cranial volume was at a lower rate. In men the percentage of GM was higher in the left hemisphere, the percentage of WM was symmetric, and the percentage of CSF was higher in the right. Women showed no asymmetries. Both GM and WM volumes correlated moderately with global, verbal, and spatial performance across groups. However, the regression of cognitive performance and WM volume was significantly steeper in women. Because GM consists of the somatodendritic tissue of neurons whereas WM comprises myelinated connecting axons, the higher percentage of GM makes more tissue available for computation relative to transfer across distant regions. This could compensate for smaller intracranial space in women. Sex difference in the percentage and asymmetry of the principal cranial tissue volumes may contribute to differences in cognitive functioning.

[snip, until page 6]

For the verbal task, in which the overall correlation between parenchymal volume and performance is low, the higher percentage of GM in women and the steeper slope of improved performance with increased WM combine to confer on women a performance advantage. However, as seen from the association between WM volume and performance on the spatial tasks, men may perform better on tasks in which a high level of performance requires large volumes of WM. This suggests that verbal tasks require less intrahemispheric transfer than spatial tasks and that sex differences in performance would depend on the relative requirements for GM and WM. However, these correlations could be spurious and should be interpreted with extreme caution. Testing this hypothesis would require a wider range of tasks showing sex differences in performance and perhaps constructing new tasks designed to require either highly focal processing or transfer of information across distant cortical regions.

Heh.  I didn't think anyone would challenge the credibility of the Society for Women's Health Research.  No matter, all research does not agree - they have theirs and you have yours.  There is sufficient data to support the Spatial/Verbal distinction, which is the point I was trying to make.  Logic, analysis, learning, and memory are all dependent upon the task.  Math is spatial, hence the average male tends to find analysis and memory in these areas easier; while women have an easier time with foreign languages.  I don't think you're looking at a distinction of 'who is more logical and remembers better', but instead 'how they are logical and what they remember'.  I was recently called on my own oversimplification of the left/right brain distinction by Eero and Markus.  Women have been shown to be better at remembering faces, which is a spatial task.  So, it's all sorts of complicated.

Anyway, not trying to beat a dead horse.  Just clarifying my position.  I'm not really too interested in the niggling details of this or even trying too hard to persuade you, because we'll just get ourselves into the realm of inconclusive data, and hence nowhere.  I'm just looking at it from within your own requirements, and these are the discrepancies I see.