Let's Do This Now

[Ben O'Neal]

I think this is the correct forum for this topic because a)I am an RPG game designer, b)This topic concerns me and my game, and c)When it comes down to it, this topic is theory.

So what the hell is this topic? Well, as the subject suggests "Let's Do This Now". All of you vs Me. We gotta get this shit out of the way or it will never die. Personal attacks on me are welcome, but will be returned in kind. Any attempt to use a personal attack on me as evidence against what I present is Ad Hominem and thus worthless. My evidence or me, choose your opponent. I'd suggest the evidence, but that's just how I am.

BTW, this was sparked by Andrew Martin's post in this topic. Ron, I pre-emptively apologise for this taint on the forge, but I can see that without this topic, the taint remains, and shows it's ugly head in all manner of topics. I am not free of blame, but I hope that through this thread we can finally move past this shit. If this is completely unacceptable then please, close this topic, and maybe shit will just "go away" with time. But I'm the sort of person who confronts challenges head-on. The only reason I'm not taking this thread to RPG.net is because of the massive flooding that would occur there, at least there is some restraint here.


Now, on to adressing Andrew's comments:

Basically, Ben, by imposing gender-based modifiers on the characters, you are imposing your sexist views of men and women on your fellow players, and to other people and groups on the web. The best way of not being sexist is to simply not be sexist. You ask an impossible question and demand an answer; when an answer can't be given, you take this as reinforcement for your sexist attitudes.

Is it racist to acknowledge that aboriginals show consistent differences in I.Q. score compared to caucasian Australians? Is it racist to acknowledge that there is a correlation between dark skin and polygany? Why is it not sexist to acknowledge that men are taller than women? Why? Because EVERYBODY agrees. Why don't I stick this in my game? Because you can't change it, so you can't explore it, so it serves no function except to enhance scores, and if this is it's only function, then EVERYBODY would choose to be as tall as they could. If everybody did the same thing, it might as well not be in the game. Hence, it is not in the game.

Now, what the fuck is "sexist"? What does this word mean? dictionary.com gives two definitions:
"Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women."
Firstly, I love that last part. It implies that the reverse is less common. Hilarious. Especially hilarious because such an implication is inherently sexist according to the next definition: (!!!)
"Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender."
Now, in no case am I discriminating against anyone based on gender. Characters in the game are not discriminated against based on gender, because it is their gender which is being defined. How can the definition of a thing discriminate against itself? As for character effectiveness, that isn't sexist either, because effectiveness is not based on gender, it is based on modifiers, which are a part of gender. To say to someone "you cannot lift this because you are a women" is sexist. To say "you cannot lift this because you are not strong enough" is not. Not even if the reason they are not strong enough is their gender. This is logic, it'll help you.

Oh, and regarding those links you gave me Andrew, they were awesome, thanks. I hope you realise though that they basically fuel my argument that beauty is defined biologically. They also promote sexism, being that they define that one rule works for males and another rule works for females. ie: for males, beauty is a quality that is inherent in the woman he is looking at (as my mechanics imply), and for females, beauty is a quality that is partly inherent in the male she is looking at (again, my mechanics) but also partly defined by her biological menstrual cycle. I knew that already, but I seriously couldn't think of any manageable mechanical way to handle the fluctuations in how a female percieves males. But maybe I will come up with something. But oh no! That would be SEXIST! pffft, gimme a break.

And so that you don't start a trend, I will not accept anything sourced from "google answers" as reliable, even if it does agree with my position. I will be holding the same academic standards as my university enforces when appraising evidence. Dr. Karl only scraped by cos I reckon he's a legend.

Really? Do you really believe that "no-one ever balked at it."? What you needed to do was to give the game system to another GM, play in the game as a player, and resist the temptation to offer helpful "advice" to the players and GM; instead listen to the player's spoken objections, watch for their hesitations and puzzlements.

Based on your responses so far, I'd say you immediately overrode any objections to gender modifiers by the players, by suggesting the preferred outcomes to the players, and by verbal and physical intimidation. I'd also suggest that your players social or peer group was less than yours, so they were "lead" by your example as GM and "teacher".

Wrong. The girls were: the girlfriend of my best friend, and she feels the same way about gender differences as her boyfriend and I do, her sister, same deal, and my sisters. I know all of these people well enough to spot instantly how they feel about something. I don't intimidate my friends and family, thank you, and they laughed at your suggestion that I do.

Strong or smart woman =/= person with disability. Your post implies that the two are deviations from a "norm," and Dana and many others are saying that that kind of assumption about what's "normal" for women is exactly the problem.

Ok, which is it people? My "assumptions" about the averages are wrong? Or the application of averages to individuals in wrong? I'll direct you further down this page to dispell the first problem, and the second problem was dealt with and identified as the unsolveable problem of induction in this topic.

Well, here are some "social injustices" which I am most abhorent in perpetuating against the ideals of many who would rather believe in what "sounds nice" rather than what is real.... kind of like something else I can think of that defies logic really.... hmmmm. Anyways:

Average males can lift 4 times the weight of average females. The strongest male can lift 2 times the weight of the strongest female. We aren't talking a few shopping bags here, we're talking a 500lb fridge. have a look at the Guinness Records for verification. Hence the power difference

Females have been demonstrated as having less endurance than men in marathons between 100km and 200km in length. This is seen as a 12.5% difference in times over such long distances. Coast JR, Blevins JS, Wilson BA. (2004). Do gender differences in running performance disappear with distance? Journal of Applied Physiology. 29(2), 139-145. Hence the differences in constitution see also: Helgerud J, Ingjer F, Stromme SB.
(1990). Sex differences in performance-matched marathon runners. Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 61(5-6), 433-439.

Males are faster runners than females, and have been shown to have greater speed and control of gross (large) limb movements, whereas females have greater control of fine (small) movements such as fingers and hands. Manning J. T. Digit Ratio: a Pointer to Fertility, Behavior and Health. Rutgers University Press; 2002. Hence the speed differences

Females are more flexible than males. This time I'll be nice and give you a link: Girls more flexible than males. Hence agility differences

Females and males process memories differently, with females remembering more fine detail, and males remembering more global aspects. Cahill, L. (2003). Sex- and hemisphere-related influences on the neurobiology of emotionally influenced memory. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry, 27(8). 1235-1241. Hence the crystal differences

Males are far more likely to develop musical talent than females, in the order of a 10:1 ratio. Sluming, V. A. & Manning, J. T. (2000). Second to Fourth Digit ratio in Elite Musicians: Evidence for Musical Ability as an Honest Signal of Male Fitness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 1-9.
and
Women's brains show a left hemisphere bias whilst men's brains show greater lateralization and right hemisphere dominance, leading to increased left-handedness, musical ability, spatial ability, and mathematical ability. Consequently, males are more likely to develop autism and language impairments. Wisniewski, A. B. (1998). Sexually-Dimorphic Patterns of Cortical Asymmetry, and the Role for Sex Steroid Hormones in Determining Cortical Patterns of Lateralization. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23(5), 519-547. Hence the fluid difference

Females tend to be more cooperative and trusting than males, and exhibit stronger reactions to powerful emotional stimuli. Wellman MM. (1993).
Child sexual abuse and gender differences: attitudes and prevalence. Child Abuse and Neglect, 17(4), 539-547. Hence the flame differences

Beauty is awesome, because Andrew gave me a link that was really cool. Here it is. Dr. Karl is a legend. But that one's not really up to my standards, so here's another link. Hell, have another one Hence the beauty differences

Finally, influence. Do I really need to provide evidence? Oh ok then. Here you go. Hence the influence differences.


So there you have it. The things I have included in that game are not there because of "my sexist agenda", they are there because goddamn it, they are real and explorable. Having something in a game that is real and explorable is not wrong. Regardless of what that thing is. A thing can only be wrong if you percieve it to be wrong, and that is a subjective reaction.

Now, I'm ready to deal with any counter-evidence anyone wants to provide. Just be careful you don't present something that helps me out like Andrew did.

I'm also ready for any of you who want to dodge the logical peer-reviewed scientific evidence I've provided in justification of my attitudes, and instead wish to play the Ad Hominem game. But this game cannot be won, and certianly doesn't affect the reasoned analysis and presentation of evidence game.

I just hope this thread closes soon, and everybody gets over this "you're only saying that cos you are a mysogynisitc sexist pig" bullshit which is devoid of foundation, logic, or relevance to anything at all.

-Ben

P.S. Ron, really, I am terribly sorry about this thread. Trust me, I find it abhorent to the forge too. I just can't think of any other effective method of dealing with this current undercurrent which I inadvertently started. But if you close it down I'll understand perfectly.

[Rob Carriere]

Ravien,
I think in the previous thread a number of different arguments were so intertwined that it got difficult to keep them apart.

- There were a number of ad-hominem points going back and forth. There were also a number of points that could be interpreted as such, but could also be read differently. As someone pointed out, starting a thread on a controversial topic in a strongly worded way is certain to generate a certain amount of heat. If you'd prefer the debate without the emcumbrance of that heat (mixed metaphor alert!) change the wording. As an old saying around here has it: ``You will catch more flies with syrup than with vinegar.''

- There was a back and forth about just what the real-world statistical facts were. It seems that you want to hash that out in this thread.

- There was the argument that it is a design decision to model your character generation process after the statistics of the population at large. A (in my opinion, at least) perfectly valid design decision, but certainly not the only one.

- There was the argument that even given a desire for a `statistical' character generation process, no game will ever model everything. The point was made in terms of `desirable', but actually can also be made in terms of complexity. A handful of humans do not have the compute capacity to simulate a world at full-bore accuracy, hence no game can ever achieve that design goal, irrespective of desirability. You have to make choices, and therefore your game will be known by those choices.

I think that if you really want closure, you'll have to address those too.

Personal opinion? I think that what you're doing is perfectly valid and looks solid. I would recommend that you find in-game expression for everything that crops up in char-gen, including your gender rules, but that's the minimalist in me speaking and for all I know you are a maximalist and find my taste abhorrent.

Would I find your game an exciting prospect to play? Not particularly. I've seen the attempts at gender rules multiple times. Heck, Dragonquest had -2 strength, +1 endurance, +1 physical beauty back in 1980 IIRC. Point is, I've never seen anything exciting come out of it. Either the whole thing is house-ruled away, or it isn't and the resulting difference between chars never amounts to much of anything in play.

Robert Heinlein has a nice line: ``If you were designing an electric motor, would you include a bunch of red roses because they happen to be handy? Or a bathtub? No, you would design it to be as small and efficient as you could make it.'' [from memory, quote may off a tad].

That's a design philosphy that I like, so when I see a rule, my question is, ``How does this rule make playing this game great?'' and with your gender rules, I simply don't see it. That is, I'm not contesting the consistency or solidity of the design--it looks good to me--, I'm not contesting the realism of the rule--I'm not qualified--, I'm saying that my past experience leads me to believe this is a likely dud.

Now, you can have a different design philosphy, or you can think that my past experience has made me a grouchy pessimist and you might well have excellent points. It's simply my best-effort opinion of the rules in question.

As for exactly what the facts are and are not in the real world, I'm not going to venture an opinion. I'm not currently qualified to have one and I'm not willing to invest the level of effort it would take to get qualified. I will, however, point out what I am qualified to point out, and that is that statistics in particular and measurement in general is a very tricksy beast.

As a simple example, translating real-world IQ statistics into a game Int stat is valid only if you can show that the Int stat expresses what the IQ test measures. Considering that the experts don't even agree as to what exactly they are measuring, this would be a challenging thing to show.

Another point is the oft-forgotten rule that ``correlation is not causation''. In this country (Netherlands) there was (up to the 70s, haven't kept track since) a near-perfect correlation between the number of babies born and the number of stork sighted in the country. This does not mean that shooting stork is an effective prophylactic.

Establishing exactly what the facts are would take a lot more than a half-dozen links to isolated studies. They might very well show that you're totally, completely and irrevocably right. They might also show something else. Sadly, life is short and I have neither the time nor the energy to find out. So I choose the much simpler path of simply not challenging your design on that level. For the specific purpose of your game, I'm willing to grant you all the points you made.

It is my hope that you'll also grant me the point I made about design philosphy.

SR
--

[contracycle]

They also promote sexism, being that they define that one rule works for males and another rule works for females.

That does not make anything sexist; as your own definition pointed out, something is only sexist when it is discriminatory.  Nobody is suggesting maternity wards for men make sense - that is your straw man argument.

Beauty is awesome, because Andrew gave me a link that was really cool. Here it is. Dr. Karl is a legend. But that one's not really up to my standards, so here's another link. Hell, have another one Hence the beauty differences[/quote]

I'm not quite sure what it is you think these demonstrate for your argument.  Lets take facial luminosity - here the argument is that generally men are attracted to a greater disparity of luminosity than women; unsurprisingly, women exhibit a higher degree of disparity.  How does this suggest one is qualitatively more attractive than the other?  Each is adapted to the others preference.

Baby seals also have a very high contrast ratio - so presumably baby seals are cuter to men than to women.  Do baby seals get a beauty bonus in your system?  If you are using this to support your contention that systematically, women should get a bonus becuase they exhibit more disparity of luminosity, then your system is judging from a male perspective.  Consideriung mascara is the oldest form of make-up, I believe, presumably you'll also want rules for how much this affects beauty, as its purpose is directly to aggravate the luminosity difference.

Speaking of differences, the brief on cyclic changes in female perspectives on male beauty were very interesting but how does indicate that womens qualitative experience of attraction is any less than mens?  It doesn;t, it merely says that the type preference changes.  I presume that with your attention to detail, you will include precise rules for menstruation and how to apply all the appropriate modifiers.

Because this system is to be realistic, is it not, so it would need all these things; all these things are real.  It would be unrealistic not to include them.

Ravien, you persist in 'spinning' this argument such that none of us are able to have a constructive discussion.  The argument is not that there are no differences between men and women.  That is a caricature of our position.  There are many and particular differences.  Nobody is claiming that men and women are alike in all details, so please stop attacking that argument.

The argument is that your system is necessarily an abstraction of the world, and that it must be a representation of a subset of the rules that drive the world.  It cannot be encyclopaedic.  And consequently it should only have rules that achieved a particular effect.  I could think of innumerable differences whoch COULD be presented, the question is which ones I choose to represent in order to achieve an effect.  If a rule is not intended or desired to be meaningful, it should not be there.

Your rule appears to be there just to make a statement.  

As you can see, its easy to find research indcating material differences - why then are you so convinced that the world is full of people claiming that anyone can bench press the same amount?  Why do you call us all stupid by depicting our argument as the claim that men and women are absolutely alike?  What we have asked is 'what purpose is this serving in your game'.

[Nicolas Crost]

Ben,

I do not doubt the statistical data you have provided. I basically think you are correct about there being a difference between men and women. But I think for many people this is not the main point. So I am going to expand a bit on a point made by Rob.

- There was the argument that even given a desire for a `statistical' character generation process, no game will ever model everything.

This is exactly the point. Basically:

1. Reality is infinitely complex. It containy an infinite number of things E that could be modeled.

2. A roleplaying game has to be finite. You can only enter a number N of rules into the game.

3. Which rules N out of the possible E you enter into the game is your choice as a designer. There is no right or wrong answers.

4. By choosing the rules N out of the possible E you as a designer and possibly as a person make a statement. You are saying: "I think fact E1 in reality is important enough to go into my game as rule N1." But not only that, you are also saying: "All of the other facts in E which are not in N are less important than the facts in N I chose to be in the game."

So about your game I think most people objecting do see you as making the following statment: "I think gender differences are important. I fact,  they are the only (or almost the only) big differences between people except for the individual personal differences. No other differences between groups are as important."

And since people do (correctly or not) feel that this is the opinion of the person Ben out there, they feel that this person might be sexist (possibly not correctly).

Looking at you own definition:

"Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender."

Saying that the role of women is being weak and beautiful and the one of men is being strong and ugly (or whatever) is... well an attitude that promotes stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

As I keep on saying: This might not be a accurate view, but I guess people around here are inclined to see it that way because you insinst on choosing gender differences to be modeled in your game over an infinite number of other things that could be modeled with equal validity.

Nicolas

EDIT: Crossposted with contacycle (damn, forgot the real name...)

Your rule appears to be there just to make a statement.  

That was exactly what I wanted to say.

[Ben O'Neal]

It is my hope that you'll also grant me the point I made about design philosphy.

Well, if I didn't I'd be commiting a rather gross hypocrosy. I only make rules for things I want play to explore, doing my best to adjust the detail involved to reflect how much I want play to focus on those rules. So yes, your comments are entirely valid and applicable, and your opinion likewise.


Nicolas, your point is taken, but I think you are perhaps missing something about the whole of my argument. The fact is, I am including as much of what I think is important as possible. If you look at the maths, individual differences are greater than gender differences. I am including social class, species, in-born abilities, choices in skills, how clothes affect appearance, how people can be affected by their interactions with other people, combat, how weapons affect appearance, reputation.... basically, everything that I think is important. And yes, gender is amongst them.

So what more than what I am including could possibly be important enough to model and have potential for exploration (this excludes bodily wastes and eating habits)?

My problem is basically that people see gender amidst the huge list of things in my game and instantly single it out from all the others as "making a statement" or "unnecessary given all the other options I could focus on". But really, what options are left?


Gareth,

If a rule is not intended or desired to be meaningful, it should not be there.

Your rule appears to be there just to make a statement.

Sigh. How often must I declare that the rules were only ever put in there to be meaningful? If I wanted to make a statement of the kind you are implying, I would draw it for the cover art to shock people. I wouldn't take the time and effort to develop integrated mechanics which have meaning and can be explored. I also would have already made my statement, and thus should be satisfied, no?

Consideriung mascara is the oldest form of make-up, I believe, presumably you'll also want rules for how much this affects beauty, as its purpose is directly to aggravate the luminosity difference.

Already in there, along with clothes, jewellery, and the effects of blood, dirt, and foul odour.

But the more I think about it the more I might include something akin to a menstrual cycle. It could really help to consolidate the reality of playing a female character. It could also be used to highlight the species differences, in defining differential lengths and/or effects of menstrual cycles and gestation periods. Given the socially dynamic and interactive nature of the rules, it may be a great addition.

How does this suggest one is qualitatively more attractive than the other? Each is adapted to the others preference.

On it's own, that paper is interesting. Combined with Dr. Karl, it shows that during half of a females menstrual cycle, she is looking for feminine traits as attractive, which, lo and behold, are most often found in females.

Nobody is suggesting maternity wards for men make sense - that is your straw man argument.

It's called an analogy: "A resemblance of relations; an agreement or likeness between things in some circumstances or effects, when the things are otherwise entirely different."

-Ben

[Andrew Martin]

Oh, and regarding those links you gave me Andrew, they were awesome, thanks. I hope you realise though that they basically fuel my argument that beauty is defined biologically. They also promote sexism, being that they define that one rule works for males and another rule works for females. ie: for males, beauty is a quality that is inherent in the woman he is looking at (as my mechanics imply), and for females, beauty is a quality that is partly inherent in the male she is looking at (again, my mechanics) but also partly defined by her biological menstrual cycle. I knew that already, but I seriously couldn't think of any manageable mechanical way to handle the fluctuations in how a female percieves males. But maybe I will come up with something. But oh no! That would be SEXIST! pffft, gimme a break.

I'm glad you liked them. I'm fairly sure they're best research available in the world on beauty. And it's very easy to add in rules for a realistic, Simulationist game that explores the concept of beauty to cope with this that aren't sexist. Simply rename "Beauty" into "Symmetry", remove the modifiers based on Gender and any points cost barrier, and add a secondary descriptor solely for "Symmetry", called "Features" which can be either one of two values: Feminine, or Masculine (and maybe a third "childish" if one wants to push at the limits movie rating guidelines). Then put in a Gender stat (one of Male/Female) and a Orientation attribute (one of Homo-/Hetero-). Players can now freely choose any level of symmetry, either Feminine or Masculine Features, Male or Female Gender, and Hetero or Homo Orientation. There's no pressure to conform the author's world view and every choice is equal cost.

So Beth's new character Kay could be described by Beth as:
Symmetry: 123
Features: Feminine
Gender: Male
Orientation: Hetero
Or any other combination that Beth preferred to explore the concept of Beauty and it's related concepts in the game, according to the best scientific evidence we have.

The Features, Gender & Orientation attributes either permit, forbid or even negate! skill attempts at seduction, resistance rolls to seduction attempts, attempts to get cheap hookers, expensive hookers, trying to get a date, avoiding a date, cross-dressing (allows a skill roll to modify Features from Masculine to Femine and vice-versa) and so on.

Once you implement a Size attribute (a good implementation for a "realistic", simulationist game is RuneQuest2 or RuneQuest III), then players will be able to explore the consequences of heavy dating and a male partner that won't take "NO!" for answer.

For the menstrual cycle modelling in female gendered characters, that would probably best be most easily modeled in all settings for most characters by a percentage chance saving throw on 1D100 that the character's player can roll if they want to to switch the character's preference from Femine to Masculine, or the player can be forced to roll to confirm the character's preference for Masculine over Feminine. Please note that I deliberately reversed the order of preferences here, to reflect ingrained attitudes that most societies seem to have.

I'd ask for more female and male players opinions at this point, before going into any more detail as more detail implies higher and higher technology level in the game setting (calendars, and then clocks, Condoms, The Pill, contraception and so on), and it almost certainly quickly impinge on the male and female players senses of modesty.

Of course, to do all of this would require changing your game system to better support the scientific view of beauty. You'll also need to put in the interaction rules between social skills and Symmetry. You would loose the "universality" of the rules, and you won't be able to combine attribute with skill, as Beauty no longer exists and the existing skills that depended upon it are now illogical. This would also imply that that other existing Attribute plus Skill are now need to be re-examined with a view to comparing the results against the best that science has to offer.

Are you man enough to do this? :)

Ole!

Do you like my Aikido?

[Ben O'Neal]

Thanks Andrew, really. That was pretty cool. You just came up with a neat little realistic system and the reason why I'm not using it, all in one. Yes, it works and is accurately reflective of reality. Yes, it cannot be integrated into my design without compromising the stability and universality of the core mechanics. What was your point?

Those mechanics would work lovely if I was trying to make beauty a meaningful and explorable decision. But I'm not. I'm trying to make gender a meaningful and explorable decision. Beauty may be a part of that, but they are two totally different foci.


Also, concerning the menstrual cycle thing, I was thinking more along the lines of players picking what date of month their cycle starts, and having a 1 week period after that where the character gains a bonus to resist social rolls made against them by other females, and suffers a penalty to resist such rolls made by males. This effect would carry over to Social Egos, making relationships during this time show more fluctuation. No, not a perfect representation of reality, but yes, close enough to make play interesting. This is an important point, I think. To realise the limits of game rules, and to work within them to get what you want. Sometimes you have to drop an idea altogether because it just can't work, and sometimes you have to make compromises. Even TRoS, a game focused heavily on combat, a game which seeks to make comabt as realistic as possible, needs to make compromises, as I have heard complaints from people who have done swordfighting in real life about how some things just don't make sense. But it's a game, so people can forgive some flaws and have fun with it. Apparently gender must be absolutely perfect or not done at all. Apparently there's no such thing as grey.

-Ben

[xiombarg]

So what the hell is this topic? Well, as the subject suggests "Let's Do This Now". All of you vs Me. We gotta get this shit out of the way or it will never die. Personal attacks on me are welcome, but will be returned in kind. Any attempt to use a personal attack on me as evidence against what I present is Ad Hominem and thus worthless. My evidence or me, choose your opponent. I'd suggest the evidence, but that's just how I am.

Am I allowed to go "meta" and go "against you" in a way that isn't connected to gender or your game? That is, can I argue against the existance of this thread?

If so, here is my question: Ben, what is your obsession with an adversarial, rather than co-operative or politely accomodating, method of discourse? This isn't an ad hominem attack, I'm genuinely confused.

I mean, if you want want to talk evidence, what's your evidence that this will "never die" unless you confront things in this manner? In my personal experience -- your milage may vary -- throwing down a gauntlet just stirs things up more.

What evidence is there that it wouldn't be better for you, and those you feel "opposed" you, to cool off and avoid threads about gender for a little while, like a week?

The story I make up when I see a phrase like I just hope this thread closes soon, and everybody gets over this "you're only saying that cos you are a mysogynisitc sexist pig" bullshit which is devoid of foundation, logic, or relevance to anything at all is that you feel persecuted, despite the fact that I don't recall anyone actually calling you a "mysogynistic sexist pig" (perhaps I missed it, I think the word mysogynist was bandied around once or twice, but that's not the same as "mysogynistic sexist pig"), and that you're less interested in people getting over it -- which would be the likely result of a cooling off period -- as you are in vindicating yourself in battle, in "defeating" those who humiliated you. Perhaps my interpretation of your phrase is wrong, but that the impression I get when I read it. Again, this is not an attack -- it's genuine confusion, since your goals and your methods seem (to me) to be at odds.

For that matter, why make a public thread rather than just taking it up with the individuals that most annoyed you in Private Message? Again, the story I make up when I see behavior like this is that you need to humiliate your "enemies" in public, which is never a good idea. I've been down that road myself and it never solves anything. Again, perhaps I have misinterpreted why you're haven't gone the Private Message route -- maybe you just didn't think of it, I dunno.

[greyorm]

Kirt,

Maybe Ben has just reached his limit, much as I have with this discussion and with what I've seen in many of the responses to Ben.

I am seriously embarrassed by some of my fellow Forgites. I tell no lie. Very seriously embarrassed.

From the start, Ben has had insults hurled at him, has been psychologically dissembled, his motivations second-guessed, his politics supposed, judged, and marked.

I'm against that. It's bullshit, folks.

So if Ben is responding in an adversarial fashion, rather than a constructive one, it's because this discussion has become a bear-pit. As such, I honestly think that any attempt to discuss this subject at this point is beyond repair, and it should be let go until tempers have cooled, and a few weeks of thought on the other person's points have occurred (not "how do I overturn his argument?" but "why does he feel that way?").

Then maybe (maybe) the discussion can recommence in a more co-operative fashion. But it has to work both ways.

[Walt Freitag]

My opinion only, since I am not a moderator.

This thread is not appropriate for the Forge.

Ben, you started out asking for advice and opinions about the gender modifiers in your system. You've gotten it, in variety and in depth. Some have no problem with them, some have no objection but question their utility for the goals of your game, some would be less likely to play your game because they find them embarrassing or inappropriate, and some find them objectionable even in principle, even if they never play your game.

In the process, you've perhaps drawn more flack than you deserved. I can't speak for other individuals, but personally I'm sorry that some responses to you have crossed over into the ad hominem. I agree with Raven that this is not right. But the recourse for it is specified in Forge etiquette policy, and throwing down isn't it. Putting up a sign that says "come fight the bear!" means you share the blame when the discussion becomes a bear-pit.

What, at this point, do you seek to learn in this discussion?

It appears that you are now trying to change people's minds, and openly challenging others to try to change your mind. That is pointless, as pointless as starting a thread that you have to apologize for, and state that you hope it closes soon, in the initial post.

I agree that this thread should be closed, and perhaps some others too. (Is there a wholesale quantity discount for thread-closin'?)

I'll suggest, in a friendly I-claim-no-authority way, that people not post to this thread unless a moderator says it's OK.

- Walt

[Ben O'Neal]

I'm not one to ignore wisdom, logic, or reason where I see it, though sometimes I can forget it when emotions run high.

Raven has a good point. Expecially about emotions running high.

I apologise for allowing my emotions to be borne out here at the forge, a place I hold in great esteem. For one week I will not touch gender in any topic except my strictly mechanical topic in Indie Design. My apologies are extended to all involved. I hope they are accepted.

This thread is now closed.

-Ben

[Valamir]

Robert Heinlein has a nice line: ``If you were designing an electric motor, would you include a bunch of red roses because they happen to be handy? Or a bathtub? No, you would design it to be as small and efficient as you could make it.'' [from memory, quote may off a tad].

That's a design philosphy that I like, so when I see a rule, my question is, ``How does this rule make playing this game great?'' and with your gender rules, I simply don't see it. That is, I'm not contesting the consistency or solidity of the design--it looks good to me--, I'm not contesting the realism of the rule--I'm not qualified--, I'm saying that my past experience leads me to believe this is a likely dud.

Rob, that's 100% my position in this whole thing also.  On the issue of "sexism / not sexism" I'm completely uninterested and couldn't care less (Raven's recent post in one of the other threads, sums up my feelings on that aspect of the issue as well).


My view was and is, that these Gender modifiers are just superfluous detail.  It is completely irrelevant to me whether they are dead on balls accurate, completely ridiculous, or represent a highly intrigueing alternative philosophy.  If they don't serve any purpose other than "just being there" then they don't serve any purpose worth including them.


Would the game be seriously harmed or significantly different by not including them?

Would a campaign played in the world stop being playable or be largely disrupted if half way through the gender mods were thrown out and the characters restated without them?

If the answer to those is "No, not really" (which it certainly seems to me to be what the answer would be), then I still come down quite decidedly on the side of "then they are superfluous and should be removed simply from the standpoint of elegant design"


If nothing changes about how the game plays with the rule vs. without the rule, then including the rule is a waste of time and space.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Kirt,

I, at least, called Ben a "mysogynistic sexist pig" in his first thread, though not in so many words.  Was it appropriate to do so?  No.  And I apologise.  I'll offer that in Ben's first paragraph of his first thread, he arrived with an ax to grind, looking for a fight -- and I took the bait.  That's my fault.  

Everything he's written since then, up to and including this thread, has only convinced me that he wanted a fight, gussied up behind percentage data thought the desire may have been.  But still, it was my job not to engage.

Ben has an agenda -- a much larger one than how his game will work. And that's fine.  It's his business to have this agenda.  My business is... frankly, not here.

So, on the issue of personal attacks: they happened, I was part of it.  I was wrong.

Ben, I wish you luck on your game, and all your endevours.  Sincerely.

And now, adieu.

Christopher

[xiombarg]

Well said, Chris.

That said, while I am not Ron, Ben closed this thread, so let's respect that.

[Ron Edwards]

Closed is now confirmed-closed, folks. I don't suppose a call for a group hug is a good idea, but maybe next time.

Best,
Ron