Okay, so let me out myself on the real reason I think mechanically enshrining gender in RPG mechanics just doesn't work for me.

I find it embarrassing.

Here I am, sitting at the table at the Con, ready to run my game, and a woman walks up and wants to play.

"Okay great! Let's get you a character. You want to be a warrior? Okay, now in this game, girls are weak and pretty, so if you want to kick ass, you'd better play a boy..."

And don't get me started on what happens when some Orcs sign up!

"Um, in this game, Orcs are strong but really stupid, so if you want to play a wizard..."

I think you described it perfectly, rafial.

rafial wrote:

Here I am, sitting at the table at the Con, ready to run my game, and a woman walks up and wants to play.

"Okay great! Let's get you a character. You want to be a warrior? Okay, now in this game, girls are weak and pretty, so if you want to kick ass, you'd better play a boy..."

..."

Maarzan wrote:
Where is the problem?

...she is in the wrong game...

I'm not sure I'm understanding your last post rafial. Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as the "wrong game".

I think Maarzan's post is valid. If you don't like a game, don't play it. If you do like a game, play it. Don't decide to play a game based on what you think other people might hypothetically think about it.

For example, I've playtested Eclipse with two groups now, one composed of 1 girl, 2 guys, and the other composed of 3 girls, 1 guy. In both cases I never shied away from gender and no-one ever balked at it. It was just another part of the game. Had I approached those groups apprehensively concerning how they might be offended about gender my caution would have shown through and they would have then wondered why I nervous, and this would have led them to think that maybe I had a reason to be nervous. So just like you shouldn't play a game if you aren't confident that you like it, you shouldn't run a game for the same reasons. If there's something you don't like, the players will pick up on it.

And Maarzan, if I'm not mistaken, I think your examples may be in reference to my proposed system. I invite and welcome your comments and input in that Indie Game Design topic. If you have any suggestions about a better way to do such things, I would love to hear them, honestly.

-Ben

Where is the problem?

Thank you, Dana, for that post. You articulated my feelings on the subject better than I could have.

Trends are trends. They are not absolutes, and they don't say anything about any individual person. Just because many women share a particular trait doesn't mean that all of them do, nor does it mean that any specific woman shares it, either. So why build in arbitrary limits on what traits a character can have solely on what the character's biological gender is?

Just because you want to, or just because "that's obviously the way it really is" aren't really answers as to why the game needs to enforce a specific set of gender-based assumptions in it's mechanics.

Me and my double major in math and physics gets real tired of hearing about how girls are "obviously" not as good at math and science as boys are.

So there are ways to do this kind of gender imbalance, and ways to make it a central theme of the game. But most gender-weighted mechanics smack less of those lofty ideals, and more of making concrete the gender-stereotypical assumptions of the designers (whatever those assumptions might be).

And since most of these designers are male

Ravien wrote:

Me and my double major in math and physics gets real tired of hearing about how girls are "obviously" not as good at math and science as boys are.

Surely you, Dana, of all people, should understand how odd that comment is, coming from you. This is merely an observation, and no offence is intended at all. But the example you are using argues against you.

This is kind of a side note, can anyone point me to games made by females? Any game at all? Just PM me.

Ravien wrote:

Dana wrote: So there are ways to do this kind of gender imbalance, and ways to make it a central theme of the game. But most gender-weighted mechanics smack less of those lofty ideals, and more of making concrete the gender-stereotypical assumptions of the designers (whatever those assumptions might be).

I'm sure that any game designers would be happy to hear your suggestions on ways to address the issue without failing to reach those "lofty goals" (address, by definition, means "not ignore"). Any suggestions at all.

Ravien wrote: For example, I've playtested Eclipse with two groups now, one composed of 1 girl, 2 guys, and the other composed of 3 girls, 1 guy. In both cases I never shied away from gender and no-one ever balked at it.

Uhuh. You're right. So I guess that no games should build in "arbitrary" abilities for character based on false assumptions such as "all humans can walk", or "all humans have two arms with hands and five fingers per hand", or "all humans have the potential to learn to speak and feed themselves". Thus it would be a mistake to create a game where birth defects aren't taken into account, or accidents that may happen over the course of one's life. Just because most people have arms, doesn't mean that assumption carries to any specific individual. By building a game based on these flawed "arbitrary" assumptions, one may well be offending many disabled people.

But the point is, if anyone is offended by a game, the answer is really bloody simple: "Don't play it".

I had a big long (boring) response written up, but I like Matt's much better than mine. Andrew's is excellent, too.

rafial wrote: And geeezz Dana, you'd realize that if you'd just think about it rationally and stop being so emotional...

Ravien wrote:

Dana wrote: Me and my double major in math and physics gets real tired of hearing about how girls are "obviously" not as good at math and science as boys are.

Surely you, Dana, of all people, should understand how odd that comment is, coming from you. This is merely an observation, and no offence is intended at all. But the example you are using argues against you.

(http://www.avitale.com/etiologicalreview.htm) The number of neurons in the BSTc of male-to-female transsexuals was similar to that of the females, while the neuron number of a female-to-male transsexual was found to be in the male range. Hormone treatment or sex hormone level variations in adulthood did not seem to have influenced BSTc neuron numbers. They go on to declare that their " findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite directions and point to a neurobiological basis of gender identity disorder."

Rafial, thanks for those games, I'll be sure to check them out.

My point though, was that if 20% of all gamers are female, are 20% of all games made, made by females? If not, why?

Andrew and Matt, I direct you to this thread. You should have a blast with it.

I prefer this answer: "if you think a game or any form of media perpetuates a social injustice, then it's your right and responsibility to make your voice heard."

Gender dimorphism is pretty complicated stuff. There are obviously genetic components, but there are also hormonal, developmental, anatomical, and sociological components (male and female cultures are different, for example) to it all. It doesn't cleave into two neat categories, as much as we all like to pretend that it does.

If this is right, then it means I've got a 'girl brain' in a 'boy body'. So, which contributes more to my being a math-geek? The brain or the body?

Ravien wrote: So when I watch a sitcom that portrays all male characters as incompetent, insensitive, and stupid, like...

Well, not really. It means that part(s) of your brain are "feminine" whilst other parts are "masculine". And just so people know, the BSTc is the Bed nucleus of the Stria Terminals, and is part of the limbic system . It is important in gender identification. However, like the rest of the limbic system, it has no function in mathematics.

More on-topic this time.. I've given pretty much thought to the issue (sex/gender based stat difference) and this is my current "solution" to the problem. I've worded the example according to the system I'm most familiar with, MERP:

"Males and females of Middle-Earth are somewhat unlike, as they are in today's world. In a normal case, a male character gets a +10 bonus to his Strength, and +5 both Constitution and Intelligence. A female gets +10 Intuition and +5 Agility and Presence. However, because PC's (and some NPC's) are anything but your average yoke, feel free to distribute that +20 however you wish (and GM approves). The average distribution is just it, an average. Use it as an guideline or when creating somewhat normal NPC's."

(BTW, if someone wonders why the free +20, the answer is simple: if you use the basic MERP stat rolls, most of your characters will suck big time.)

So, the basic solution: define the gender-based stats, use them with NPC's, but allow the PC's to diverse from them if they want an extraordinary character. If you want, you may add some quirks to the most abnormal (woman with high strength might be huge in size, man with high empathy could be easier target to seduction or pleas). Should work in any system and genre, with little work of course.

You contradict yourself. Limbic system identifies gender, and does not affect mathematics. True. "Math brain" work maths, and does not affect gender. So how can you say the "math brain" is masculine? It doesn't have anything to do with gender or sex. (While there is statistical relevance, the mathematical abilities do not indicate gender on individual level. Nor does f ex empathy; males can be nurturing without being feminine, and women can be cold and still 'girly'.)

It's about that part of brain that alone can be masculine or feminine (or neither, or both).

Yeah, but the point still stands: you can't sit down and play with orcs because, oh crap, they get this intelligence penalty...

You can give a dwarf +2 to Strength, and a half-orc -4 to Intelligence and no one bats an eye. But the minute you make a case about male and females being different (even though they really provably ARE, physically and psychologically), everyone goes apeshit and it's sexist, the person daring to note it is psychologically disturbed, and etc.

That is, no one complains about the intelligence penalty for orcs, but make a penalty (or bonus) gender based, and suddenly everyone's undies are all twisted around.

I note the mechanics under discussion are modifiers which do not say "men ARE stronger than women" or "women ARE more socially adept than men" (which would be sexist), only that all things considered, statistically, a man has a better chance of being physically stronger, a woman a better chance of being more socially adept. And thus the only thing these modifiers will affect in play will be the upper levels of ability (frex: a perfect female athlete will not reach the same strength as a perfect male athlete).

The randomization of the actual scores will ensure that not every man is strong, nor every woman social...nor will individual women be weaker than men, or individual men less social than women. Individuals will remain, and you will have women stronger than men, and men more socially adept than women. You'll have female athletes who can kick the asses of most men, and even a sizeable portion of the assess of male athletes as well.

The only place the modifier will really, actually, truly affect things is in the overall statistics (averages) across a large group. But, like I said, point that fact of statistical difference out with game mechanics and suddenly you're a pariah among the orcs...I mean people, since no one would have peeped if the original question had been about race (or rather "species") based modifiers in a game.

I doubt Ben would have been cursed at and psychologically cross-examined, either. Male lions tend to be stronger than female lions, so generate their strength scores with a +2. No one blinks. Human males tend to be stronger than human female, so generate their strength scores with a +2. Listen to the furious screams of inequity!

I have a theory: if Ben's modifiers had nothing to do with the Strength score, there'd be much less fuss. I propose there is a subconsicious association of "strength" with "ability to do things," and thus any game which boosts a particular person or group's Strength score compared to another individual or group (let alone penalizing the other group) is viewed as painting that individual or group as "less capable" but not just physically -- thus, giving women a negative Strength modifier or men a positive modifier is tantamount to calling women "weak" in not just a physical sense, stirring up all sorts of negative stereotypes, which are what is actually being reacted to.

I mean, seriously, do you hear anyone ANYONE complaining that men are shortchanged by these rules? "Not social enough?! EGADS! That BASTARD!" It's all, "Oh, that's so sexist! So chauvanistic! How dare you give men a bonus women don't get?" Well, screw that, maybe it's really phallogystic (or whatever the opposite of misogynistic is).

Or more seriously, maybe it's just a reaction to the perception of "inequality" that modifiers create -- since our culture pounds into our heads that everyone, especially men and women, are equal, and can do everything the other can do, the idea is poisoned that things can be inequal and not have it be a "better than" and "lesser than" value judgement.

The whole reaction is ultimately foolish based on the simple fact that the same arguments used as to why it "isn't realistic" or "shouldn't be done" are never applied to assigning modifiers by race.

It's so obviously political when you take a step back.

In fact, hey, how's this, I refuse to consider gender-based modifiers a problem until I see a real thread filled with the same sort of vicious response to race-based modifiers. So, come on folks, lets see you get your steam on about those damn elven intelligence bonuses! And how about until then, you're all a bunch of racists.

(Please, someone label me a sexist jerk now, and totally fail to get my point.)

Raven, I totally grok your point.

You know why I don't like racial modifications? I don't see the point. They don't seem to add much to the game experience for most designs. They're boring. Ditto gender modifications.

That said, as Dana implied, in a Gamist RPG like D&D 3.x, this is part of your min-maxing choices, so that's cool. And for a largely Gamist RPG I could be cool with gender modifiers for the same reason, assuming that there was a benefit to being female as well as a disadvantage. In that case, it becomes not unlike choosing between an orc and an elf.

Frankly, my issue with the gender modifiers in Ben's game isn't that they're there, but he won't explain what purpose they serve. "It's interesting" isn't a real answer, because obviously it interests him, or it wouldn't be in the game in the first place. "It's realistic" isn't an answer, because there are a lot of things a game can seek "realism" on -- there has to be a reason one chooses to emphasize one form of realism over another. "It's one thing I want to explore" isn't an answer, because it begs the question: "Why do you want to explore that, and not something else?"

To use Ben's extreme example, I can explain why all of my games feature characters with arms and legs that can walk: Because most humans have arms and legs and can walk, and I want people to be able to identify with their characters somewhat. (Tho most of my games allow people to play a differently-abled character if they really like.)

But you can't use that explanation for the gender modifications -- I don't see how having a strength bonus to my male character helps me, as a male, identify with the character, because personally, I'm a geek and I'm not very strong, I don't identify with strong males at all. My wife is stronger than me.

Also, I'd say 99% of all people agree that the average person has arms and legs. I'm not sure 99% of all people agree that men are stronger than women. Whether you think those people who don't believe men are stronger than women are wrong is irrelevant -- they're going to balk while reading the game. So, there has to be a reason you're willing to exclude such people.

I mean, if Ben could give an answer similar to my reasoning for D&D above, I could help him with his game more, because I'd understand what he's trying to do, and why. As it is, I'm left scratching my head.

That said, there is a small fallacy in the argument about orcs. Orcs aren't real. There aren't any real orcs around to get justifiably upset if I'm playing an orc in a terribly stereotypical way.

However, some people feel awkward playing a character that isn't the same gender. Frankly, given the way race is in America, I'm uncomfortable playing, say, an Afro-American male in a game set in modern America, since I have no idea what it's like to grow up as a black man in America, regardless of whether there is a "Playing Basketball" or "Funky Dancing" bonus (or anything similarly stereotypical) for playing a black man or not in the game.

I have this problem becaues Afro-American males are real, just as women are real. Orcs aren't real, so it's less of an issue. Sure, I don't know what it's like to grow up as an orc, but I can make it up and not worry so much that I'm wrong.

Admittedly this is a highly Sim priority on my part, but I think that's why even highly Gamist games like D&D shy away from gender differences, as the "embarrassment factor" that this thread refers to means that players might not be comfortable making the optimal Gamist choice for social reasons. Now, Ben's response is "don't play the game, then," and there's something to that, but it leads right back to the "why" issue: Why exclude these players from your game? What are you trying to achieve?

For the record, I have the same issue with Mongrel. I don't understand what Ron is trying to do with the gender-based mechanics, there. I don't a priori oppose them as sexist -- and ditto for Ben's game -- but I can't evaluate the mechanics until I understand the purpose. Again, to use Ben's extreme example, it's much easier for me to figure out why games feature humans with arms and legs, and to evaluate the purpose the mechanics have in assuming they exist, becuase that's a much more baseline and less contentious issue. I don't have to examine evidence, I can just use my own arms and legs as a model. ;-D

In fact, hey, how's this, I refuse to consider gender-based modifiers a problem until I see a real thread filled with the same sort of vicious response to race-based modifiers. So, come on folks, lets see you get your steam on about those damn elven intelligence bonuses! And how about until then, you're all a bunch of racists.

So when I watch a sitcom that portrays all male characters as incompetent, insensitive, and stupid, like... I dunno, Everybody Loves Raymond... then it is my "responsibility" to start a public outcry?

xiombarg wrote:
You know why I don't like racial modifications? I don't see the point. They don't seem to add much to the game experience for most designs. They're boring. Ditto gender modifications.

Frankly, my issue with the gender modifiers in Ben's game isn't that they're there, but he won't explain what purpose they serve. "It's interesting" isn't a real answer, because obviously it interests him, or it wouldn't be in the game in the first place. "It's realistic" isn't an answer, because there are a lot of things a game can seek "realism" on -- there has to be a reason one chooses to emphasize one form of realism over another. "It's one thing I want to explore" isn't an answer, because it begs the question: "Why do you want to explore that, and not something else?"

So, there has to be a reason you're willing to exclude such people.

dana wrote:
Me and my double major in math and physics gets real tired of hearing about how girls are "obviously" not as good at math and science as boys are.

Ben,

Ravien wrote:

Dana wrote: Gender dimorphism is pretty complicated stuff. There are obviously genetic components, but there are also hormonal, developmental, anatomical, and sociological components (male and female cultures are different, for example) to it all. It doesn't cleave into two neat categories, as much as we all like to pretend that it does.

Actually, hormones are controlled genetically (excepting circumstances such as HRT, but even then, the hormones can alter gene expression and it becomes about genes again), anatomy is genetic (excepting things like getting your arm cut off), and development is always in a social context... so basically we can lump things into the two categories: Nature and Nurture, or Biology and Environment (which I prefer). Neither can exist without the other, and neither ever acts alone.

I think that gender modifiers help to reinforce genre.

More importantly, I think that the cliche that women are weaker than men is reinforced by the majority of action- and suspense-oriented genres, including 'weak' ones.

(For the purposes of this post, I define a weak genre as one which does not require much suspension of disbelief. Hitchcock's thrillers are a relatively weak genre, i.e. quite 'realistic', whereas Hong Kong action flicks are a strong one, i.e. 'over the top'.)

(Nevermind that all sorts of other genre conventions might be in place. Hitchcock's movies are notorious for humiliating cool blondes, but seen out of context - i.e., his body of work -, this does not tax our SOD too much.)

(My terminology - genre, realistic, weak/strong, cliche - is on shaky ground here and I'd be grateful if someone provided better terms.)

*-*-*

I'm sure the following examples for physical struggles between men and women will seem familiar:

(1) The heroine gets hysterical (another cliche) and the hero folds her into his arms to calm her while she ineffectually beats at his chest.

(2) The hero grabs the heroine and kisses her. She struggles, to no avail. (Afterwards, she will either slap him or kiss him in turn.)

(3) The heroine tries to kill the hero (or the villain) with a knife etc. He grabs her wrist and forces her to drop the weapon.

If the situation turns out differently, it's considered a surprise and is usually exaggerated (i.e., she applies a judo-throw when he tries to kiss her) rather than handled realistically (e.g., she pushes against him and after a few moments he gives up, embarrassed).

*-*-*

What's more is that these kinds of situations are by no means rare, they happen all the time because the battle of the sexes is a major topic.

Hence, a gender modifier for strength would seem to be spot-on for some strong, action- or suspense-oriented genres, e.g. Swords & Sorcery (which usually features agile female warriors at best).

Moreover, such a modifier would not seem particularly out of place for most weak, action- or suspense-oriented genres - including most fantasy genres.

Which genre, if any, do you consider _Eclipse_ to be, Ben?

Regards,

Hal

Matt Wilson wrote: There is no perpetuation of social injustice against any real-world party

You want to create a game where white people get +2 intelligence? You bet I'll speak up.

Elves are generally assumed not to exist...

xiombarg wrote: Orcs aren't real. There aren't any real orcs around to get justifiably upset if I'm playing an orc in a terribly stereotypical way.

"It's realistic" isn't an answer, because there are a lot of things a game can seek "realism" on -- there has to be a reason one chooses to emphasize one form of realism over another.

Raven and Ravien:

Matt is not arguing that men and women are the same. He never says that, and he doesn't imply it. Men and women are different. We all agree. Let's grant that as a fact and quit "arguing" about it. No one is disagreeing on this point.

Now, how are they different? Brain waves, hormones, muscle mass, endurance, I.Q. score... there is an awful lot of statistical data out there that you can reference. A given study might indicate that the "average" man is stronger than the "average" woman, for a particular type of lift, among a certain population, from a certain sample size. Is that indicative of every woman and every man, everywhere, always? Certainly not.

See, no one is arguing that the data you cite is wrong. The data from a given study is probably accurate. The bugaboo with statistics is the conclusion that one draws from the data. Science is pretty rigorous when it comes to this kind of thing.

The people that did the weight-lifting study, for example, would never presume to say that their experiment indicates men are stronger than women. They would say that, for this population sample-size, with this lift technique, at this social/nutrutional level, among people willing to participate in the study, men were stronger on average. Extrapolating out from that data to every person everywhere at any time is simply bad science. It's not "realistic" at all.

If pointing to real-world science is your entire reason for including these mechanics in your game (as Ravien claims again and again) then your resolution scale is going to have to become very fine, indeed. Because the science you're using as justification for your system refers to very specific tests, conditions, and subjects.

A simple, broad attribute like "Power" just won't do. The strength studies tested certain techniques of weight-lifting. Your stat will have to be split out into Bench Press, Snatch, Clean & Jerk, and Leg Press, at least -- with appropriate modifiers for each based on the statistics available. And that's just for weight lifting. What about hitting power? That's certainly part of your Power attribute, but striking power isn't tied directly to weight-lifting strength. How do we know that men have an advantage here? Where's the data?

As you can see, this quickly gets very complex. Using real-world data to inform your RPG is a fine way to design a game (it's not to my taste, but I wouldn't say it's "wrong") but it's useless if you use very specific data to model very broad mechanics. This same principle applies to the Social bonus for women in the system. I'm not singling this out as a sexist issue because the flaw (IMO) lies at a more basic level of statistical interpretation.

To summarize: Using very specific and controlled data to inform very broad and generalized mechanics is counter to your aim of being realistic. To truly support the real world data you've chosen to reference, the system must reflect the parameters of that data in a meaningful way.

greyorm wrote: While an excellent point...that we are speaking about species which do not actually exist, and there's no room for someone to be offended by this...the problem is that the differences between men and women DO exist in the real world. I cite the following:

o Men and women think differently, MRIs show their brains function differently on a fundamental level of processing data (and even perception thereof differs).
o Psychology has long held that women create, maintain, and categorize social structures in their communities differently than men do.
o Male and female athletes are in different categories because they cannot be compared physically to one another.


Men and women are different in a number of areas of daily function, not just appearance, and have different capabilities at the ends of various scales. Yet some folks scream like they've been burned with fire if you dare to point these differences out, or (gods forbid) actually define them in the context of game mechanics.

greyorm wrote: So, please answer this: what sort of mechanical effect(s) detailing the real differences between men and women, phsyiologically and psychologically, would you be comfortable with?

greyorm wrote: That is, no one complains about the intelligence penalty for orcs, but make a penalty (or bonus) gender based, and suddenly everyone's undies are all twisted around.

Hey, John

Would this also be acceptable?

Designer: "Because I want women to be more socially adept in my game world."

Absolutely, Jack. Thanks for pointing that out.

John, I just figured that if the root of potential offense is saying such things are based on real world, I figured why not remove that from the equation?

Facts are neutral.

Raven and Maarzan: I understand that realism can be its own end, but the fact of the matter is, mechanics can not simulate everything that realistically exists. Do you dispute this? Otherwise there would be more games with a detailed physics model.

Therefore, there has to be a reason one choose to focus on that particular realistic aspect of things. I can cede that Ben is 100% correct in his view regarding men and women and it is still telling that he chose to highlight this fact, just like if a game includes highly detailed rules for bullet wounds there has to be a reason that aspect of realism was focused on as opposed to, say, detailed social interaction rules.

I don't dispute that men and women are different, it is my claim that there has to be a reason to include that aspect of "realism" in the game. Ben might not be aware of the reason, but there has to be a reason why he's not ignoring it in favor of other, arguably equally important issues, such as an accurate physics model for charging horses. Ditto for Ron and Mongrel.

For example, Hal's reasoning -- regarding genre conventions -- is perfectly acceptable. It explains why you're highlighting that particular aspect of "reality" and not, say, worrying about the physics of horses, which is less important for genre convention.

And Raven, to answer your question, even assuming Ben is 100% correct about gender differences, it's just as unrealistic not to include realistic horse charges as it is to not include realistic gender differences. You have to choose where you are unrealistic and where you're not, and there has to be a reason for that, even if it's "it's easy to represent this difference under the system I'm using, as opposed to having a complete physics model, so I do".

Ditto for Ron and Mongrel.

The problem is Ralph, it would make no difference if Ron confirmed the world details were 100% in line with the mechanics because Mongrel is meant to be a sim game and there's no man behind the curtain there. That the mechnics/world might be making a comment on the human condition carries no weight in a sim design. Definitionally, that's not what the sim players would be interested in. Remember, sim = exploration for its own sake.

Given sim revolves around discovery and curiousity there are only really two things at stake: is it interesting and is it plausible (i.e. is it worth being curious about/discovering and does it hit the cause and effect buttons).

I think Ben's answer of "it's interesting" is kind of infuriating because it's not subject to proof - but contrary to some posters' beliefs it is sufficient. It's your whole argument for liking Mongrel: the cause and effect stuff coming from the rules produces a game world that you find interesting. Ben finds worlds with sexual dimorphism interesting.

There is pretty much zero mileage in "I want X in my sim game because X is interesting" vs "No X isn't interesting, so why do you want X in your game". It's like me saying "I'm putting anchovies in my salad cos they taste nice" and someone coming back with "Anchovies don't taste nice, you must have some other reason for putting them in your salad".

Cos shifting to "the point must be the moral or ethical implications of that choice" is narrativism pure and simple. I'm not sure of the value in suggesting a simulationist game design ought to, deep down, have narrativist values.

The other answer - it's required for plausibility - I see more mileage in. The advantage to the argument from plausibility is that not everything has to be equally realistic - only the stuff you know about. Frex, if I'm watching a martial arts movie I know what a steaming pile of crap that all is. I know that the three guys could take the one guy down just by mobbing him and the one guy - even if he's the best martial artist in the world - would go down. No question, no doubt. But if you show me a guy pretending to play the piano I would have no clue if he's faking it or real. Just no clue. So for plausibilty, I'd have very different standards of "realism" depending on what is being portrayed.

So it could be for Ben that, because he knows about sexual dimorphism, it's required for plausibility. I'm not sure that such a requirement constitutes a moral position.

[Ralph - hard question - your extrapolations for Mongrel: do you find them interesting in and of themselves as a venue for exploration of a static system or do you find them interesting because of the potential such a setting holds for narrativist drift?]

I can't answer for Ralph, and I'll admit I didn't think of Mongrel from that angle until he posted it. But the world he's describing as being implied in the Mongrel rules sounds like a wicked-cool place to explore, in simulation terms. So my answer to the hard question is "I don't see where his answers constitute any sort of narrative drift, just exploration of Setting through the lense of System."

However, I think there's room in sim for "commenting on the human condition." A "realistic" Sim game about slavery in the 1800s, for instance, where the players are the slaves, would definitely have some sort of comment about the human condition, even without a narrative Premise. In some ways, ANY simulation about humans would have to have some sort of comment on the human condition - the simulation as documentary, y'know? Those comments don't have to coalesce into any sort of Premise, though.

And all systems, all rulesets, contain some commentary on the human condition, even if it's just the human condition as it is reflected in the setting. Cyberpunk has cybernetics reduce a person's humanity - I believe the game is just attempting to simulate itself, but this is still a comment on what it means to be human in the cyberpunk setting. HERO prices Comeliness at 1/2 a point per level, which says "beauty isn't very important compared to these other attributes." I dunno, maybe I'm totally off base here.

Finally, I'm not sure if I agree that "it's interesting" is sufficient by itself, but I don't think that it, as a reason, should be discounted out of hand. There are a lot of things that are interesting (and for me, sexual dimorphism is one of them) but the question then becomes is it interesting enough for this game? 'Cause if I just tossed everything I thought was interesting into a single game, well... it'd be one huge, contradictory mush with so many different dice mechanics alone it'd be hell to play. To counter your anchovies, let's just say I like ice cream and I like motorcycles, but I'm not gonna shove my mint chocolate chip into the gas tank. (I haven't seen enough about Eclipse to know whether or not sexual dimorphism is ice cream to his motorcycle, I'm just arguing the general "it's interesting" point) in this paragraph.

The problem is Ralph, it would make no difference if Ron confirmed the world details were 100% in line with the mechanics because Mongrel is meant to be a sim game and there's no man behind the curtain there. That the mechnics/world might be making a comment on the human condition carries no weight in a sim design. Definitionally, that's not what the sim players would be interested in. Remember, sim = exploration for its own sake.

Given sim revolves around discovery and curiousity there are only really two things at stake: is it interesting and is it plausible (i.e. is it worth being curious about/discovering and does it hit the cause and effect buttons).

Ralph, you wrote over in part II of the mechanical discussion:

What differenciates Mongrel from Eclipse, is that in Mongrel, this gender and age distinction has a very clear, and very informative reason for existance. Despite repeated inquiries, I have yet to see any similarly profound rationale for the differentiation in Eclipse.

You're looking for a profound rationale - the man behind the curtain - but there doesn't need to be one. There can be one - and in narrativism there's good reason to say that one is required - but there's no such need for a profound reason w/r/t simulationism. For it to be interesting is enough.

mechanics can not simulate everything that realistically exists

it is still telling that he chose to highlight this fact

greyorm wrote: I think John Harper's lengthy rebuttal about the degree of modeling is a red herring. We're talking about game systems, after all.

He could make the same arugment about why races (real or not) shouldn't have such abstract modifiers, or why wounds (or wound boxes, or whatever) are too abstract for realistically modeling injury, or how a 20-point scale isn't a "realistic" measure of human ability...

Ralph

I think we're at an agree to differ point because essentially I think we've got two conflicting underlying methodologies in mind. I'm thinking more create freely then edit later. You seem to be edit as you go. I think what needs to be edited is indeterminate before the thing's finished; you seem hold that when your designing you should have the finished product so clearly in mind that you can always know what's in and what's out.