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.

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".

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.

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
--

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

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.

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

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

contracycle wrote:

Ravien wrote:
Your rule appears to be there just to make a statement.

That was exactly what I wanted to say.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Ravien wrote: 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.

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

Ravien wrote: 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.

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.

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

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

Rob Carriere wrote: 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.

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

Well said, Chris.

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

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

Obviously your non-gender examples were rhetorical questions, but actualy I think there is value in examining them because the way you phrased the questions was so open to interpretation.

Ravien wrote: 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

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: (!!!)

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.