Up front, I am completely aware of the 'controversy' that building mechanical gender differences into a game entails. People may be offended/disgusted/whatever, and I accept this. I ask that if this is the case, that your input is most especially welcome, provided you give reasons for why you are offended. If you cannot give reasons, then your offence is an automatic and irrational response (irrational in the sense that it arises devoid of reason, not that it is invalid). I welcome all intelligent discourse on this topic. [/disclaimer]

Now, this issue has cropped up before I know, but AnyaTheBlue hinted in this thread with this quote...

What is your goal in Simulating these real or perceived gender differences? How and why does it make the game more fun? Is it 'really real', is it based on a bias or misconception, or is it wish-fulfillment?

Ravien wrote: So, questions to spark discussion:
Has anyone attempted to use gender mechanics in their games? If so, why, if not, why not?
Are games typically focused in such a way that gender mechanics invariably result in The Problem?
What is your personal attitude towards gender being mechanically salient within a game?

If it helps, you can address my mechnics specifically to help highlight problem areas and/or whatever.

Ben,

I don't have any necessary problem with gender- or sex-structured mechanics. The thing is, I do think your defense here actually sort of begs the question: why bother?

It seems to me that by including a sex division within the mechanics, you focus attention on that division. The question, then, is why you want this focus.

Let me put it this way. Suppose I wrote a game set in the antebellum South, and I built in mechanics such that blacks were, on average, less intelligent but physically stronger than whites. Now I could do this out of pure racism, of course, and the danger would certainly be that some would read it so. But I could also do it as a way of focusing attention on cultural inequities. For example, if I had "intelligence" be a general marker that also indicated education, and I emphasized that physical strength was largely dependent on hours and hours of physical labor, then the unequal mechanics would probably be historically true: male slaves especially would tend, on average, to have less education and more physical labor-hours than white plantation-owners. But if I built it this way, and simply said, "Well, because it was really like that," I'd have structured the mechanics to focus on this issue for no good reason. If, on the other hand, I did with the explicit and overt purpose of encouraging players to bang their heads against the horrible inequities of that society, then it would be a reasonable (if a bit dangerous) thing to do.

I could see the same thing with sex differentiation. I could easily see writing a game in which sex differences had strong mechanical effects, with the point being to focus play on the reasons for those effects and inequalities. But to do it because it "makes sense" or seems "balanced" or simulates some notion of reality strikes me as very problematic indeed.

My question, then, would be why you want attention drawn to this issue, in your game.

Hi.

I'll be blunt. I tried to write a really cozy, friendly response, but life's just getting too short.

You sound like a teenage boy stuffed in the head with a bunch of fear-driven women-scare-me-so-at-least-I-can-be-safe-here-in-a-fake-D&D-game crap.

Now:

First, Chris's post above is vital. I mean vital. You must articulate why *this* particular bugaboo is so vital to your game to defend this point. You say it's to simulation reality. Well, there's tons of modifiers you could add.

For example, the effect of wealth on male and female strenth. The average woman in Los Angeles could kick the ass of most men in famine ravaged lands across our planet. Where are the wealth modifiers for strength?

Don't have them? Why not? Oh, you're really, really married to the idea of PC men being, on average, more powerful than PC women? Great, then. That's the obsession at stake, and not modelling reality.

Second. (And this is my Standar Arguement (tm) when it comes to this nonsense): PCs, by definition, are NEVER THE AVERAGE! Who the hell is to say the greatest female adventurer of any fantasy world isn't the strongest person who ever walked the earth? These are the people who break the norms. These are the people who set the upper limits of capability, stamana and strength.

These riduculous modifiers always presume the average of society. But when creating specific EXTRAORDINARY characters, the average is out the window. THAT'S THE POINT.

Yeesh.

Look, you want to make yourself feel better knowing that even though you feel at a loss because you feel a lot more attracted to women than you feel women are attracted to you, go ahead, give them a STR penality to compensate for what you percieve as the inequality of beauty. But please, please, don't hide behind "logic" or "simulation" when you're talking about fantasy characters, in a fantasy world, where the norm might be anything, and in particular, the PCs are anything but the norm.

This sounds harsh. It's meant well. Listen: take the hit. In ten years you'll thank me.

Christopher

clehrich wrote: I could see the same thing with sex differentiation. I could easily see writing a game in which sex differences had strong mechanical effects, with the point being to focus play on the reasons for those effects and inequalities. But to do it because it "makes sense" or seems "balanced" or simulates some notion of reality strikes me as very problematic indeed.

My question, then, would be why you want attention drawn to this issue, in your game.

Italic emphasis mine.

John and Chris, quite a few points, and good ones all.

OK, here is my feedback: as far as I see, the only effect you have for gender is in the attribute modifiers. This creates the strong subtext that you think that gender differences are primarily genetic rather than cultural. In contrast, for example, my Vinland game has fairly strong social effects -- women have roles which are pretty much historical -- but no mechanical difference in the attributes. This creates a subtext that emphasizes the social creation of gender differences over the genetic dimorphism.

So I guess here's my question: what are you doing to acknowledge gender-based social roles? In my experience, most fantasy games which have gender mechanics tend to throw in a token Strength modifier, but then go ahead and ignore gender throughout the rest of the game -- even encouraging parties where warrioresses and witches work alongside priests and rogues.

It seems to me that by including a sex division within the mechanics, you focus attention on that division. The question, then, is why you want this focus.

I could see the same thing with sex differentiation. I could easily see writing a game in which sex differences had strong mechanical effects, with the point being to focus play on the reasons for those effects and inequalities. But to do it because it "makes sense" or seems "balanced" or simulates some notion of reality strikes me as very problematic indeed.

why bother?

Ok, three posts got cross-posted because mine was long.

Christopher, that was perhaps the most infantile rant I've ever had the displeasure of reading here at the forge. Clearly you saw "Mechanical Gender Differences" and formed your opinion of me before reading my post (which I actually seriously doubt you did), and did not allow yourself to be swayed in any way by my arguments therein. Such an attitude makes discourse impossible, so I would ask that until you can provide something considered to this thread, that you do not further reply.

Had you read my post, and had a look at the play-test pdf I linked to (which, given that you were addressing me specifically, you really ought to have), then you would know that in no way are men "more powerful" than women. In fact, by your attitude I would hazard a guess and presume that to you, physical power is the definition on character power. In my game, that is clearly not the case, given the strong emphasis on social interaction and the inclusion of 8 other attributes, which you so conveniently ignored.

As chris mentioned, and as I replyed in my previous post, the attribute modifiers are symbolic of genetics, and as such, do not necesssitate the inclusion of wealth as a factor.

Without knowing my game, I find your argument that PC's are never the average to be laughable, and I'm sure this would be true of a few other games as well.

Look, you want to make yourself feel better knowing that even though you feel at a loss because you feel a lot more attracted to women than you feel women are attracted to you, go ahead, give them a STR penality to compensate for what you percieve as the inequality of beauty. But please, please, don't hide behind "logic" or "simulation" when you're talking about fantasy characters, in a fantasy world, where the norm might be anything, and in particular, the PCs are anything but the norm.

fantasy characters, in a fantasy world

Ravien wrote: So, questions to spark discussion:

What is your personal attitude towards gender being mechanically salient within a game?

If it helps, you can address my mechnics specifically to help highlight problem areas and/or whatever.

Chris, Ravien, both your posts are a little hot under the collar. Please relax.

I'm with the "why bother, your game isn't about gender issues" camp here. Why do you want your rules to derive differences between genders? Do you believe that cultural norms must be backed up with some genetic cause?

If that's a reality of your game, why is it so?

Edited to add:

I believe that one of the supplements for Sorcerer deals with player gender.

In one version of Snow From Korea, I incorporate cultural gender differences, by providing characters of different genders with different skillsets, agendas, and Currency mechanics, which are intended to make them feel very different in play. I'm not sure how well this has succeeded, since SFK is still in a semi-RPG state and hasn't been really playtested.

For the record, I read the post.

For the record, I read the rules.

For the reord, when I wrote "powerful" I was inferring "physically powerful," since that was the topic on the table.

And my first point was Chris' point in his first post, which has now been echoed by two more posters:

"Why?"

And yes, it is YOUR FANTASY.

... and so, I'm still fascinated... Why is this Your Fantasy?

In one version of Snow From Korea, I incorporate cultural gender differences, by providing characters of different genders with different skillsets, agendas, and Currency mechanics, which are intended to make them feel very different in play. I'm not sure how well this has succeeded, since SFK is still in a semi-RPG state and hasn't been really playtested.

Why Bother?

My other issue is scale. A few years ago I was reviewing the literature on differences between the genders (mainly psychological rather than physical) and the overwhelming trend was that there was a significant* different between the genders in some traits, but that it was very, very, very, very small. So that the variation within a gender is vastly greater than the variation between genders.

In SFK, the reason was simple: the gender line provided a fairly obvious division that let me hang various mechanical doodads on it. Has nothing to do with issues at all. (Though it does reflect some observations I have made about the source material, this was more happy coincidence than something deliberate.)

In the one-gendered version of the game, all the characters are the same gender, but the tenor of Currency interactions changes from gender to gender; the female game has a much more accessible Resource, while the male game's Resource is more powerful.

In the two-gender version, players actually play both members of a couple, and their characters can interact in limited ways; the point in either case is to explore the number game that the interacting Currencies create.

First of all, let's try to discuss this civilly. I agree with Claire that in modern societies the differences on the whole are pretty small. Certainly even Ben's +1 / -1 on a scale of 1 - 20 is questionable for many things. For example, the ostensible gap in math scores girls is extremely small when measured in recent years (less than 5%). On the other hand, the language gap where boys do significantly worse in verbal tests is more significant.

To me, the bigger issue than quibbling over 1% vs 5% is the implication that the observed gender differences in populations indicates only inherent genetic tendencies. This is the age-old problem of nature vs nurture -- expressed in modern-day gender arguments as essentialism vs constructionism. There's no right answer, but I think there are problems with making one or the other inherent in your game mechanics -- because it's a sticky issue that has no clear real-world answer.

Ravien wrote:

John Kim wrote: So I guess here's my question: what are you doing to acknowledge gender-based social roles? In my experience, most fantasy games which have gender mechanics tend to throw in a token Strength modifier, but then go ahead and ignore gender throughout the rest of the game -- even encouraging parties where warrioresses and witches work alongside priests and rogues.

I guess my initial idea was that the commented on why such social roles existed, but I can see how it doesn't acknowledge their permanence. Your point about throwing in a modifier and then forgetting is well taken, and part of what I see to be The Problem.
...
But the gender rules I include are not meant to be reflective of "reality" or the world, but instead are the cause of the world's reality. I feel that the distinction is important to avoid getting the horse before the cart.

Ravien wrote: Also, to help further this discussion, I would be very interested in hearing how you brought about cultural gender differences in your Vinland game.

Ravien wrote:
Actually, I think I've already provided an explanation. A few actually, in my original post and subsequent replies. One of which can be summarised by "To give credence within the rules to the reality of the world the rules support". I really can't think of any better reason than that for any mechanic to be introduced into any game. As I understand it, it is basically the Lumpley principle restated.

Now, this is not a physical difference, and yet it is, in my opinion, not a small one, and clearly indicative of the levels by which males and females can differ.

Now, clearly my mechanics are dealing with "large-scale" things in terms of attributes, but instead of just homogenising them, and losing all the detail of the true differences,

Unfortunately, it seems to me that this discussion is not one of thoughtful reflection on design, but instead has turned out as negative throwbacks to why such a thing might be included. I have yet to see any real reason to not include gender modifiers other than the ones Claire presented, and instead I'm only seeing "why bother" as a question of "why break with the accepted convention", as if this issue really is far more controversial than I ever could imagine.

Really people, if you can't see why one should, why the fuck should you NOT include gender? It's pervasive and salient in every day of our lives, in every aspect. Turn on the TV: GENDER, listen to music: GENDER, our language is laced with gender-specific references (chick-flick? brute?), so why is it so hard to imagine a fantasy world where we are, as we are in reality, different genders?

Ravien wrote:

My other issue is scale. A few years ago I was reviewing the literature on differences between the genders (mainly psychological rather than physical) and the overwhelming trend was that there was a significant* different between the genders in some traits, but that it was very, very, very, very small. So that the variation within a gender is vastly greater than the variation between genders.

Really? I'm doing that right now for my next essay. Isn't it fun!?

Ravien wrote: However I would question your interpretation of "small differences". As you imply, what is small? As a rather shocking example, approximately 30% of all women (yes, real figures from real studies cited in a meta-analysis) fantasize about being raped (as in being the victim, not doing the raping). Guess how many men do the same? 2%. Now, this is not a physical difference, and yet it is, in my opinion, not a small one, and clearly indicative of the levels by which males and females can differ. A trend that I have found is that the more specific you make your test item, the bigger the differences will be, and the more general the item is, the smaller the differences will be, as inter-gender differneces come into play more. So you are right, it is about scale, but not the scale of the differences, instead it's the scale of the specific item of interest.

Ravien wrote: Now, clearly my mechanics are dealing with "large-scale" things in terms of attributes, but instead of just homogenising them, and losing all the detail of the true differences, I've highlighted them to show that differences do exist, but unfortunately character sheets are not 2000 inventory personality assessments.

Ravien wrote: This is really similar to how I've approached the rest of the rules, in that all the details of combat are not represented, but are instead collapsed and magnified to "similuate" or rather "emulate" combat. Social interaction is follows the same principle, in order to get the maximum benefit from the minimum detail. Is this really all that unreasonable?

Ravien wrote: Unfortunately, it seems to me that this discussion is not one of thoughtful reflection on design, but instead has turned out as negative throwbacks to why such a thing might be included. I have yet to see any real reason to not include gender modifiers other than the ones Claire presented, and instead I'm only seeing "why bother" as a question of "why break with the accepted convention", as if this issue really is far more controversial than I ever could imagine.

Ok, lots of points to respond to, and I'm afraid I'll miss some or some will be posted while I'm posting this. ho hum.

John: Thanks for the insight into your game. It has brought up something which I will come back to with reference to the later posts.

To me, the bigger issue than quibbling over 1% vs 5% is the implication that the observed gender differences in populations indicates only inherent genetic tendencies. This is the age-old problem of nature vs nurture -- expressed in modern-day gender arguments as essentialism vs constructionism. There's no right answer, but I think there are problems with making one or the other inherent in your game mechanics -- because it's a sticky issue that has no clear real-world answer.

I think you're faced with a problem here. You're trying to answer the question of why gendered social roles existed -- but you're doing it only through the mechanic of small attribute modifiers. I think you'll find the answer that those attribute modifiers don't make any significant difference.

Which is totally irrelevant. The fact that one aspect of psychological behaviour has a high variance of appearance does in any way imply that other - in this case physical - differences has anything like the same degree of variability.

But they are not true differences if you have exaggerated their scale by one or more orders of magntiude. Now they are aesthetic decisions.

Well, part of the criticism is that much of that media is itself sexist, so imitating it is hardly a step forward. At beast its non-challenging conformity with a conventional paradigm, at worst its active misogyny.

I'm afraid I didn't find it especially enthralling. I mean, it just didn't enlighten me very much. But population trait differences is not my thing.

I'm not at all interested in playing a game that involves some attribute about my character's tendency to fantasize about being raped. That's partly just me, because I like my system simple and small, but I don't think it's simply that tencency in my roleplaying preference.

Mechanics is one way of doing this. But you have made the game about gender differences by doing this.

I'd be playing in freaky bizzaro world and it would only serve to bring home to me that the world is not really like that, that I'm damn glad that it isn't, and why am I doing this again?

It's not an approach I'd take myself. And you asked for personal opinions.

To be honest, I'd think twice or thrice about playing in a game that used a mechanic to exaggerate gender differences and I both happily play in games where the social and economic opportunities for women are limited, and I've been extremely lucky in the people I play with and their general respect for the fellow human beings.

Ravien wrote:

I'd be playing in freaky bizzaro world and it would only serve to bring home to me that the world is not really like that, that I'm damn glad that it isn't, and why am I doing this again?

If acknowledging gender differences is "freaky bizzaro", then I'd guess you'd be a modern feminist, right? If so, then the reason you would never play my game is not because it's a freaky bizzaro world, but because it either a) defies your ideal notion of reality or b)see the bottom of this post for discussion of types of rules.

In other words, I can include higher-order rules that state that no woman can ever be a warrior and no man can ever seduce a woman till the cows come home, but as soon as I say "Ok, you can do whatever you want, but you are just naturally not suited for some things" I get myself into all sorts of trouble.

I'm sorry, but I think this is fucking stupid.

Now thats not on. This sort of attack on Feminism is exactly the sort of thing that makes it look as if you have a covert misogynistic agenda. Am I to take it you think women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen? Thats a criticism just as exagerated as the stereotype you seem to apply to feminists.

They can be used for all sorts of effects because they are not predicated on an alleged actual analysis of actual reality.

Ravien wrote:
Attack? I made an observation that Claire would not like my game because it is incongruent with her ideal reality. Her ideal reality is incongruent with mine, does that mean that she is attacking me? Not at all. I feel my observation was valid, and the conclusion, that she would not play my game because it does not correlate with her ideals, is entirely valid also. I apologise if there was some hidden value judgement being made in there.... I can't see one.

By modern feminism, I am referring to the belief that devoid of culture, males and females would be identical.

That said, within the bounds of mechanics in games, how would you define reality? Or are current trends of disregarding all historical fact and psychological evidence concerning gender entirely representative of how you think reality actually works?

They can be used for all sorts of effects because they are not predicated on an alleged actual analysis of actual reality.

Neither is magic, what's your point?

WHEN THE FUCK DID THIS BECOME ABOUT REALITY???

Since when is any game designed to make ascertions about the players? Since when does +1 Fluid on my character sheet mean that REAL humans in REAL life have +1 Intelligence any more than "Can cast balls of molten lead" means that REAL humans can do this?

What is so special about gender, that makes it so unique among all the other things that anyone could ever comment on, so much so that it alone reaches beyond the realms of the game to include the player's reality?

So let me reiterate: Why is gender so ignored? Is it like the elephant that's sitting in the living room? Everyone sees it, but nobody says a thing.

Ben, I've been watching this thread, and given your comments so far, particularly those about "feminism"* but not limited to those comments, not to mention the way you assume any female who disagrees with you must be a "feminist", it seems that you do have an axe to grind regarding male/female differences. After all, you did start this thread in the first place.

You claim that you've only instuted these differences to explain your in-game reality (i.e. that armies are mostly made of men), and I understand that, but the thing people are really asking you with their "why bother" questions, which you don't seem to be getting, is this: Why do you feel the need to explain that particular aspect of the game's "reality"? Why do you have to explain why armies are made of men, reather than letting the GM and players come up with a plausible reason that they can accept, anything from "cultural mores" to "men are more aggressive"? Why is it so important to you that the answer is "men are stronger"?

Before you get more defensive and start swearing at me as well, understand that this is where the confusion you're seeing is coming from, and why people don't "just get" what you seem to think is so obvious. We're not attacking you, we're confused that you won't own up to your agenda, when, from the outside, it looks like you have one.

That said, part of the reason you're so frustrated might be you're not even conciously aware of your agenda. If that's the case, this is your chance to reflect on what you're really doing by having these game-mechanical gender differences in your game, and consider what your agenda is. I know you think your agenda is merely explaining in-game reality, but there is a reason that particular in-game reality appeals to you rather than an in-game reality where the genders are equal, just as a fantasy game appeals to you more than a sci-fi game. What is that appeal?



* I put "feminism" and "feminist" in quotes because your concept of feminism is a caricature of actual feminist thought. I mean no offense by this, I'm just saying I don't think of feminism the same way you do.

Silmenume wrote: In a world and culture where we are supposed to celebrate diversity (differences), why is the quantification of said differences inherently problementical?

And because there are differences why is that necessarily a negative issue, and one that is drawing attention itself?

If we are supposed to be celebrating diversity would this not present an opportunity to do so?

Differences and the quantification of them mean nothing - that is unless human beings then decides to make other sorts of judgements based upon those inherently neutral differences.

Ravien wrote: As a side note of sorts, your example of a "racist" mechanic was good. But here's an exercise: Why would such a mechanic be a bad thing? This question is perhaps made especially harder if the game were actually attempting to depict the reality of that historical period. Would it still be as bad if blacks were the base rate and whites had +2 to intelligence and -2 to strength? What about if blacks had +2 to intelligence and -2 to strength? Are these options equalling unappealing? See, what I would take home from this is that there is nothing at all inherently wrong with such a mechanic, nor is it racist. Instead, I think any problem with such a division is not what that division is, but the fact that there is a division, implying that deep down, no-one wants to be different or "singled-out" from whatever is defined as "the norm", unless it is for praise or something positive. If in such a game blacks were "the norm", whites would not wish to be different from them regardless of "balance". Of course, such an observation is made hilarious by the explicit desire for everyone to be "an individual".

What is so special about gender, that makes it so unique among all the other things that anyone could ever comment on, so much so that it alone reaches beyond the realms of the game to include the player's reality?

For you to state categorically that anothers view is an ideal, as opposed your own pragmatic analysis, is to undermine the credibility of the claim.

Her ideal reality is incongruent with mine...

Can you point to where this claim is made? Because I have read several feminist authors who would agree to no such thing at all. This does not in any way legitimise misogynistic stereotypes of women.

As soon as you claimed you were trying to represent the real differences, as you see them.

Sure. And you could also say "in my wholly fictitious world, females are less strong than males by a much greater degree than actual gender dimorphism in humans", that may well be fine. but when you allege this is a correct view of reality, then you are making a statement that may jar with your audiences view of reality.

Six thousand years of systematic oppression, thats what.

Disagreeing about whether a difference is worthy of a game mechanical modifier is not "ignoring gender". Making a point of making a particular thing worthy of a modifier when other things - like nutrition - have as great or greater an impact, and are yet ignored, may well suggest that the author has a particular axe to grind.

If you make it your personal business to have a system that displays gender dimorphism, and you further exagerate that degree of dimorphism - as it seems to me - then it seems that it is you, not I, with a special and particular issue with gender.

This debate is going all over the place, But I would like to chiop in therefore I'll confine myself to addressign the orriginal post and it's questions.

Ravien, first of all I think I should point out that your orriginal post is very loaded. First of al you reserve the right to call people irrational if they don't agree with you (they have to give 'reasons'). Soon after you imply that people who think men and women should be modeled the same are zealots (any other approach is 'blasphemous'). These are phrased very carefuly, but the inference is clear. It's clear from the beginning that you're setting yourself up for a pretty nasty debate, otherwise why preface your post with such loaded language? I think it's reasonable to comment on this, because it makes up a significant portion of the word count of your post.

As to the main part of the post, I find it a little confusing. I'm not realy clear why you choose to have gender modifiers. In one place you talk about this simply modeling the (fantasy) game world. In other places you seem to at least strongly imply that you think these modifiers also model differences in our world.

You make one point - that you want the way things are in the game world to lead logicaly on from character generation. I think this is a lost cause because surely game world conditions are going to have a big effect on how people develop in their lives before the point of character generation. There's a cause-effect loop here, not just a linear progression, so I think this argument is untennable.

Another assumption of yours is that soldiers are men only because men are stronger. There are many resons why soldiers tend to be men, one of the main ones being that it's somewhat inconvenient for an army if a significant proportion of it's combat troops regularly get pregnant. IMHO this massive logistical problem for ancient armies is so great that it dwarfs any notional attribute differences between men and women. The fact that in most human societies women raise the children also ties them to the home in a way that makes military campaigning inconvenient, so there are solid biological reasons for these social differences that make arguments based on strength modifiers look a bit silly. The fact that women have a womb and breasts are somewhat more important than a cap on Strength. Yet these reasons apply only in general, but need not make any difference to individuals, or even minority groups.

Arguments about whether men or women are inherently more attractive are, to my mind, beside the point. Beauty in both men and women has always been celebrated. Should we argue whether Venus had a higher Charisma stat than Adonis? Is the Venus Di Milo inherently more beautiful art than Michelangelo's statue of David, simply because the subject is a woman? Many animals have strong physical differences between the sexes for evolutionary reasons, but humans bond in pairs for life. For us, attracting and keeping a single partner long term is equaly important for both genders.

It sems to me that games about gender difference, or game worlds in which gender differences play a significant role can be interesting. For example we might play a game set in the Imperial Court of feudal Japan. In such a setting gender roles would play a major part, and whole character life paths and social roles would be heavily gender based. However I could write such a game without making any judgements whatever about the intrinsic differences between male and female human beings, and yet the logic of the game would not suffer one jot.

If you want the game to be about gender roles, that's fine. At least the premise is out there in the open and the game can resonably be judged on it's own terms. However it seems that this game realy isn't, so I'm left somewhat confused.

The game in question uses a points-buy system. To my mind, the main advantage of such systems is that they allow players to play the characters they want to play. By and large, people what to play extraordinary characters, or at least characters that do extraordinary things. A system that limits that using arbitrary ceilings on abilities is at least guilty of incoherent design.

Finaly, a reality check. There's recently been a TV programme in which a group (20 or so I think) of volunteer civilians is put through SAS special forces training. The volunteers were all very fit - fitness instructors, national level athletes and the like, and always included some women. If women had a significant cap on their physical abilities you'd expect that none would ever get through, yet consistently some women usualy managed to stay in through to the last 3 or 4. This even though the SAS chief instruction often copmmented that he didn't realy think women had a place as front line troops - at least a notional bias. So I'm sorry, but your arguments don't stack up, and practical tests of the theory wash out as well.


Simon Hibbs

I'm going to be daring and ignore everything else posted in this thread except for the original question.

Ravien wrote: Unfortunately, I haven't figured out a way to make gender important beyond chargen, so once you've advanced a bit the choice of gender becomes mute....

Ravien wrote: But somewhere along the line this thread got derailed into being an attack on my justifications for including gender mechanics. Whilst I am perfectly happy to debate this, I was hoping to see how many other people have considered this, and why they have chosen to use/not use such mechanics. John and Sheryas both offered excellent examples from their own games, which provoked me to distinguish between higher- and lower-order mechanics. Both of which I am happy to discuss in this thread.

Olympic potential. All events are split into gender. Males consistently run faster and for longer than females. Males can become significantly stronger than females. They can swim faster and for longer. None of these things can demonstrably be caused by any factor other than genetics, as all athletes can reasonably be assumed to have comparable access to nutritious food and hours of training. To imply culture in this difference is to suggest that playing with barbies makes Jane a slower runner.

Goddamn it! That's always the way isn't it? You spend ages replying to one post, only to miss 3 more. And then someone else replies while you click "reply". AARGH!. Time to play catch up...

not to mention the way you assume any female who disagrees with you must be a "feminist

Why is it so important to you that the answer is "men are stronger"?

Why do you feel the need to explain that particular aspect of the game's "reality"?

...but there is a reason that particular in-game reality appeals to you rather than an in-game reality where the genders are equal, just as a fantasy game appeals to you more than a sci-fi game. What is that appeal?

This is in some ways parallel to one of Mike's Standard Rants, the one about combat systems. If you write a detailed combat system, you're saying that combat is important to your game. That's fine, but you need to think about whether combat should be important to your game.

Now neither system is good or bad as such. But each emphasizes different things, says different things about sex and gender. So why have you chosen to model this as you have?

Okay, so why is sex particularly important to that goal? I mean, it may well be so, but I have yet to hear you explain that.

Because of this, any curtailment of players' choices based on character gender is seen (to some degree correctly) as a de facto curtailment of players' choices based on the player's gender....

Do you believe your suggested rules curtail players' options based on the players' gender, given the widespread preference for playing characters of the same gender as the player? If not, why not? If so, why is that OK?

As to the main part of the post, I find it a little confusing. I'm not realy clear why you choose to have gender modifiers. In one place you talk about this simply modeling the (fantasy) game world. In other places you seem to at least strongly imply that you think these modifiers also model differences in our world.

Another assumption of yours is that soldiers are men only because men are stronger. There are many resons why soldiers tend to be men, one of the main ones being that it's somewhat inconvenient for an army if a significant proportion of it's combat troops regularly get pregnant.

However I could write such a game without making any judgements whatever about the intrinsic differences between male and female human beings, and yet the logic of the game would not suffer one jot.

If you want the game to be about gender roles, that's fine. At least the premise is out there in the open and the game can resonably be judged on it's own terms. However it seems that this game realy isn't, so I'm left somewhat confused.

The game in question uses a points-buy system. To my mind, the main advantage of such systems is that they allow players to play the characters they want to play. By and large, people what to play extraordinary characters, or at least characters that do extraordinary things. A system that limits that using arbitrary ceilings on abilities is at least guilty of incoherent design.

If women had a significant cap on their physical abilities you'd expect that none would ever get through, yet consistently some women usualy managed to stay in through to the last 3 or 4.

Just a quick note: There's middle ground between "this is irrelevant to my game" and "this is at the center of my game".

If one chooses to specifically include gender modifiers, there had better be a good reason (else why include it at all?), but it need not be the focus of the game.

Regards,

Hal

Halzebier wrote: If one chooses to specifically include gender modifiers, there had better be a good reason (else why include it at all?), but it need not be the focus of the game.

Hey chief,

About the penalties for male PCs in social interactions:

So far in you fantasy world, men, on average, are stronger than women.

And women, on average, are more socially manipulative than men.

You weren't doing your defense against a priori stereotyping silliness any good by bringing that up again.

Christopher

I can't keep up with all these posts!

Thank you Hal, you said it better than I could.

Christopher, the term socially manipulative was one used by you, and not me. I intended the meaning that they were more socially adept, as in had greater interpersonal relation skills and empathy. If you view this as manipulation, well, that's your opinion, and one which I had hitherto not considered.

Regarding the reason it's included: I'm having difficulty understanding what the hell could qualify as an acceptable reason.

Gender will be important throughout the game, though not so much so as species or social class.

Gender does not impinge on playability or character effectiveness, it only provides differing potential for success in various avenues of pursuit. Hell, since everyone loves strength so much, a female with a power of 13 and a male with a power of 13 will both have the same options available. If both wish to pursue physical strength, the male will be able to achieve higher in the end. The reverse would naturally be true for other attributes. Since physical strength really isn't the best way to do stuff, neither player would find their enjoyment stifled.

Gender does correlate with the reality of the world. It also shares some correlate to my percieved reality of our world, but this is neither here nor there, any more than combat shares a correlate with my percieved reality.

The question that has been asked repeatedly and ducked by you repeatedly is this: what does any of that have to do with your game?

Whoa! Lot's of heated debate going on here. I just thought I'd drop in and address a couple of points.

Going back to the intent of this thread, I would not have a problem with mechanical sex-based differences. While it wouldn't affect the characters I chose to play, it does seem reasonable and logical.

It seems to me Ravien's trying to create a game-specific reality based as much as possible off of real life, and I think sex-based differences work in that model. If anything, I think the modifier is under-representing the strength difference, as shown below.

The New England Journal of Medicine conducted a fitness study a few years back, in an effort to determine male and female overall strength averages. This study used 10,000 participants of each gender, chosen from different countries, ethnicities, ages, and professions. The study used the squat lift as the best overall indicator of strength, and came up with the following results: average male lift was 351 lbs. and the average female lift was 86 lbs. That puts the male average at about 4 times the female average.

That said, I think physical strength has got jack-all to do with armies being composed mostly of men. Okay, maybe that's too far...sure physical stength is a benefit to a soldier, but I'd hardly qualify it as the most important factor. Physical agility, endurance, phychological readiness, ability to endure pain...I think these are all more useful.

I have no agenda here -- feminist or misogynistic -- just addressing the orignal post, and adding a few facts and comments.

Andrew Morris wrote: Physical agility, endurance, phychological readiness, ability to endure pain...I think these are all more useful.

Hey,

This is the polite (first) version of my moderator intrusion on this thread.

Please take a full hour before replying to this thread. That means that between (1) your desire to reply and (2) the actual "submit," a full hour of real time should pass.

"But someone might post my point first!" In which case be grateful.

"But I have to reply! Right now!" No, you don't.

Best,
Ron

[oops -- x-posted with Ron]

Ravien wrote:

Why do you feel the need to explain that particular aspect of the game's "reality"?

Because it is a big part of all human's reality, whether we acknowledge it or not, far more than combat or whatever. Also, with my game's focus on social interaction, it just, you know, fits.

As a side note, I'm beginning to notice a trend in people primariy focusing on strength. This is notable not because it is strength, but because it is a negative for females and a positive for males. No-one so far has any problem with males suffering -1 to their emotional aptitude score, nor their memory score.....

... my game has a broad focus. Rules for combat, social interaction, economics and trading, moving up the social ladder, differential species cultures... if I included all these things and neglected gender it would be all the more obvious for it's absence. It's appeal is the same as all the things I've included: it's another thing in a long list to explore. Also, I love challenging conventions and inspiring critical thinking of such norms. :)

This is in some ways parallel to one of Mike's Standard Rants, the one about combat systems. If you write a detailed combat system, you're saying that combat is important to your game. That's fine, but you need to think about whether combat should be important to your game.

I think the issue is more why it shouldn't, which seems to be the focus of posts thus far. If someone says "i'm including combat in my game" people say "why" and they say "because it's a cool thing to do" other people say "cool". But when I say "I'm including gender mechanics" people say "why" and it seems no reason short of declaring myself a mysogynist and thus system dismissable is enough to suffice. Yes, I want people to explore gender, in much the same way as they explore combat. This does not mean I want to make an issue out of it any more than i want combat to be an issue. Only an avenue of exploration.

Ravien wrote: For sure, but try telling a girl that she can't join the army because she might get pregnant nowadays. Why should they accept that reason in a game?

See my previous post concerning higher-order functions. Essentially the reason you would have no problem is because you aren't providing an innate reason for the rules, and thus you are implying that they are arbitrary, and only there to define the game. Such things are fine, but apparently as soon as you give a reason things get icky.

It isn't about gender in the same way it isn't about combat or social interaction. it is about exploration of the setting through these avenues. I can't remember who but someone earlier gave a suggestion for a way to make gender influential during play (as opposed to confined to chargen, which is where it stands atm), and this suggestion I will take up.

Also, one TV programme does not even match decades of olympic events.

I included social interaction mechanics because they both provide an avenue for exploration and reflect the reality of the world.

The actual mechanics I chose because they conceptualise what I think is happening in the shared imaginative space.

Yep, I've pretty much said the same thing for gender a dozen times now.

So if you can tell me how you would answer the question, perhaps I could follow your example and provide a satisfactory answer.

Andrew Morris wrote: study used the squat lift as the best overall indicator of strength, and came up with the following results: average male lift was 351 lbs. and the average female lift was 86 lbs. That puts the male average at about 4 times the female average.

Ravien wrote: ... if D&D, a game primarily concerned with combat, included a -2 penalty to STR for women ...

Simon, that's ten minutes elapsed between your last post and this one.

This is the harsh moderator post: if y'all don't wait at least one hour before (a) deciding to reply and (b) actually replying, as inferred by me from the timing of your posts, then I'm shutting this one down.

Best,
Ron

Not sure why this one caught my eye but, there is little true difference in the actual physical limitations of men and women. Trace the history of land speed records, weightlifting, and any other physical determinations of the human body throughout history and the records are constantly being broken.

Physically I think women possess more body fat than a man on the average. This however is not a hindrance.

In the mental attributes, I think history can be somewhat unfair due to the role that women were assigned by their male counterparts throughout said history. While the (considered) most intelligent person of today is a man, this is I would argue, not because he is a male.

Beauty is a subjective trait in today's modern world. In shakespearean times the more corpulent women were the more beautiful while today it is the waif (for the most part). This is due to cultural shifts, which I think someone mentioned.

In short, physical limitations based on gender when trying to simulate a real world comparison are typically the perception of the game designer towards the real world. If however you are trying to assert a different kind of reality (which would normally have a proper explanation for the gender difference) then attribute modification based on gender difference is ok.

JOE--

To address the point about armies and pregnancy, yes there significant differences between the modern day and the ancient world, primarily medical. We have the pill, of course, but also we have good medical practice that makes surviving childbirth common; mortality in labour I think is a much more fundamental reason for not composing fighting troops of females. Also of course we know what happened to children born to the camp followers - most were simply exposed to die. But camp followers could be quite large groups and many children were simply raised with the army, and this group may well, such as with Rome, settle down as a village when the legion was retired.

Back to system. Conspiracy X uses a heavy Karma system that abstracts all characteristics to 5 levels and they are very broad. Almost all people will fall into Strength 3; 4 would acocunt for professional or olympic class athletes of either sex; 5 is for extermely heavily built weight-lifters, professional American footballers, wrestlers and sundry aliens and machines. Going down, strength 2 would be adolesecents and the elderly, and 1 small animals, pre-teens and similar.

Note how wide this scale is, this really does cover the spectrum of human strength. Every number in the system is meaningful, too. You have to have a pretty firm character concept to want or need to go to strength 4, and you pay lots for it at chargen; likewise you get lots back for going down to 2. going to 5 or 1 would probably require a backstory in the Seriously Weird category.

This system doesnt start from inputs like sex and then calculate an output, it merely asks you to describe the character as they are. It may well be that you or I feel that its less easy or likely whatever for a female character to achieve 5, but that only really changes the weirdness required of the rationale.

Ron, I hope I haven't violated the wait time. My computer clock is wrong, and the Forge times don't match up to my watch. I believe I have, but if I haven't, then I apologize. I'll be keeping an eye on my watch from this point on.

simon_hibbs wrote: First of all, that's only one very specific measure of Strength.

simon_hibbs wrote: However even taking this result at face value, it tells us next to nothing about genetic potential, and therefore the results at the extremes of the population, such as adventuring groups.

simon_hibbs wrote: There may be a million reasons why adult women tend to be less strong than men due to cultural roles and taboos that mean they never reach their full potential, or that lead men to develop more physicaly than they otherwise would. Those reasons may apply across a population as a whole, but whether they apply to a specific individual is a completely different question and the rules are for creating individuals, not populations.

simon_hibbs wrote: Whether a particular cultural effect infleunces an individual created by these rules is not a random or statistical event because it's a points-buy system and you can define your own character concept, therefore using random-population or statistics based arguments is irrelevent.

I'll try to summarize here. First of all, let's not kid ourselves that this is political -- on both sides. The reason why this is political is that this bit of reality (i.e. genetic vs cultural) is a terribly important issue for attitudes and policy regarding sex in the modern world. Other issues of realism are not generally so charged (i.e. no one cares whether a bardiche is better than a halberd).

I also have to disagree with some other posters on one point. There is no "neutral choice" here. It is not true that no attribute modifiers for sex is the natural choice and any change from it needs to be justified. OK, it has the advantage of being simpler. But it is still a commentary on gender. When I chose to have no attribute modifiers and strong social gender typing in my Vinland game, I was making a politically-significant choice just as much as Ben is making in his attribute modifiers. So I don't think it's fair to to say that his sex-based attribute modifiers require more justification than any other choice.

He's right that lack of inherent mechanical differences between the sexes can be a feminist statement, albeit a mild one. I mentioned "essentialism" and "constructionism" before, but didn't really explain them. Essentialism in this context is a position that differences between the sexes are primarily genetic, and observed differences between men and women just reflect this genetic essence. Politically, it is generally used to argue for the status quo -- because if, say, women earn less than men that is because of an inherent preference for home over career. Constructionism is a position that observed differences between the sexes are primarily social. It is used to argue for cultural and political change to address the disparities.

Ravien wrote: If gender is only defined by genitalia, then perhaps some people could profer explanations for the following things, all of which are facts I have learned through my degree or blatant observations of my world which no sane person could dismiss:

Olympic potential. All events are split into gender. Males consistently run faster and for longer than females. Males can become significantly stronger than females. They can swim faster and for longer. None of these things can demonstrably be caused by any factor other than genetics, as all athletes can reasonably be assumed to have comparable access to nutritious food and hours of training. To imply culture in this difference is to suggest that playing with barbies makes Jane a slower runner.

I dunno what to say about Ravien wanting to indicate gender differences mechanically. it's his world, if he wants mechanical gender differences, I suppose that's fine; but he shouldn't expect anyone to agree.

now, as for justifying his mechanical choices by reference to the real world, or addressing the more general question "should RPGs include mechanical gender differences to increase realism?" I have to say that such mechanics are not a good idea, because the supposed physical differences (+1 Strength vs +1 Beauty, or whatever) is just BS. one pound of well-toned muscle produces the same amount of strength in either male or female bodies. a male athelete and a female athelete, both in the top of their class, will have equal strength in proportion to their bodies. and things like "beauty" are such a bundle of subjective statements and cultural biases that it seems pointless to argue for a genetic basis.

furthermore, although the average woman may be weaker than the average man, that's a statistical statement, not a genetic statement. if you want to include city population mechanics that generate the same statistical profile, fine. but when you get to a player generating a character, I'd have no gender restrictions whatever, aside from maybe social restrictions on what different genders are likely to learn.

the reason is because, throughout history, there were examples of women who didn't fit the statistical model. they were exceptional. as far as I'm concerned, RPGs are about playing exceptional people. if someone wants to play a five-foot-something tall woman who can lift a 200-pound man above her head, fine; since such a woman exists in real life, I can hardly see telling a player "NO, you have to subtract 1 from your strength."

the issue of slaves in the antebellum South came up earlier. again, throughout the period, there were examples of highly-educated slaves or ex-slaves; so, although statistically slaves were less educated than the white people around them, what exactly is the point of giving an intelligence penalty to slave PCs? if the game is about the attitudes towards slaves, then play the social side, not the supposed genetic differences. if the game is set in the antebellum South but isn't really about slavery per se, then don't even worry about the social side as far as PC slaves and ex-slaves are concerned -- everyone recognises the PCs as the exception to the rule.

so, to summarize: including gender biases in NPCs is one thing, but I wouldn't build gender biases into chargen for PCs. it goes against the spirit of RPGs.

that's my advice. I'm not going to argue the point, because I think this thread has gone out of control.

On reflection, I think my possition is that there are some obvious physical differences between men and women at a statistical level, and even at the extremes of ability within the population (though less so than at the average). Nevertheless, I don't think this is significant enough, or worth enforcing at a game level unless these differences are in some way the subject of the game.

Andrew Morris wrote: Let's say that in a theoretical game, males have an average Strength of 10 and women have an average Strength of 9. Further, let's say that in this game world, men an women have exactly the same genetic potential for Strength. Why then should it cost a player the same amount of points to have a female character with a Strength of 12, as it would cost to have a male character with a Strength of 12?

John Kim wrote: also have to disagree with some other posters on one point. There is no "neutral choice" here. It is not true that no attribute modifiers for sex is the natural choice and any change from it needs to be justified. OK, it has the advantage of being simpler. But it is still a commentary on gender.

Hi Simon,

I was thinking along the same lines you were, and came to a different conclusion. (Kind of.)

I don't think Ben is concerned with "naratively based simulations of fiction." He really is striving to create "statistical simulations of the population" -- and then run, kind of a fantasy meets that simulation. Like predictive weather programming.

Now, whether or not the concerns already named (how valid are Ben's assumptions for the population's progamming, why certain data input but not others, how do exceptional people who beat the norm figure in, will the limits he's working with still be valid in say 50 years and many more) completely invalidate his model is another matter.

But, as far as I can tell, he's going for the Sim Dream: his fantasy world would keep going even the players stopped. I personally see such an goal as impossible, not to mention not to my taste. But we have to consider his goal of his work.

And it seems that your goal of RPG play (and mine), are very different from his.

Christopher

Ok, quite a few good points. Thanks for that World Records data Andrew, it was exactly what I was going to reach for.

Also, thanks John for your point about including/not-including gender. You managed to articulate exaclty what I wish I could have, but I think it was all the more poignant coming from you.

I've had similar experience as Andrew when discussing this with the girls I know, who all had no problem with the modifiers I included.

Now I have two things I would like to say:

1. Valimir, you said this:

If you were to design a game set in 19th century England, for instance, where there where very strongly delineated male vs female roles in society. And you wanted to highlight how those enforced roles led to different distributions of attributes. And you wanted to indicate how women of upper social status were physically weaker because their role in society didn't permit them to engage in strenuous physical activity and so they never had the opportunity to develop strong musculature. And you provided an opportunity for a player character to elect to ignore that negative modifier in exchange for taking on the social stigma of being a non conformist within society's expectations...then yes...THAT would be a valid and viable use of attribute modifiers...especially if one of the goals of the game was to highlight the effects of social stratification.

Is a 13:1 male to female genius ratio "not significant enough to include in a game"? Is being able to lift 200% the weight of what a female could lift "not worth enforcing unless the differences are the subject of the game"? (italics mine). Apparently politics is far to strong to surmount with even the biggest and most blatant differences, even though these differences are perfectly relevant to the "exceptional" characters. I guess I'm one of very few who sees the elephant.

Valimir, I am currently working on making gender far from superfluous.

However, I just realised a noteworthy parallel with this thread.

No-one could reasonably argue that

"wow, this game was alot of fun...and it wouldn't have been nearly as much fun without those ______ modifiers for attributes...those really made the game sing" (inserted blank mine)

Christopher Kubasik wrote: I don't think Ben is concerned with "naratively based simulations of fiction." He really is striving to create "statistical simulations of the population" -- and then run, kind of a fantasy meets that simulation. Like predictive weather programming.

Ravien wrote: Is a 13:1 male to female genius ratio "not significant enough to include in a game"? Is being able to lift 200% the weight of what a female could lift "not worth enforcing unless the differences are the subject of the game"? (italics mine). Apparently politics is far to strong to surmount with even the biggest and most blatant differences, even though these differences are perfectly relevant to the "exceptional" characters. I guess I'm one of very few who sees the elephant.

That's not what his game says. it says I as player have a free choice of what my character concept is. Given that, his decision to make some character concepts radicaly more expensive than others, or even completely impractical, needs some justification. Does he realy expect the population of characters generated with this system to conform to the population of the world?

Is the game mechanical cost of not being a peasant the same as the game mechanical cost of being in the top 10% of women?...

...Does that realy mean that the game mechanical cost of being an independent noblewoman should be 400 times that of being a peasant lad?

Other parts of the game system don't seem to cost things based on rarety, but on the consequences of the choice for the game effectiveness of the character.

Your game says I can choose whatever characetr concept I like. If I want to play one of the few Genius level women, why should I be penalised for wanting to do so in the game system? Your game explicitly states that the character concept is a matter of free choice, yet the game mechanics are incongruent with that freedom.

In fact if you were to set maxima for characteristics that limit female potential inteligence you'd be making it effectively impossible to play one of the few genius level women. If the mechanic was just to make female inteligence more expensive at least I'd still be able to swallow the cost and buy up inteligence anyway.

Looking at the rules it seems to me that most of the cost structure does not exist to encourage a statisticaly representative population of characters. Rather it seems to exist as a play balancing system, to make the generated characters balanced from a play point of view. You've made several statements here that seem to support that interpretation. So again this is incoherent game design, because there's no obvious play balance issue with respect to playing strong (or inteligent) women.

Ravien wrote: There is no mechinical cost for choosing your social class. They are there for exploration.

And what, pray-tell, is the top 10% of women? Are we still talking about strength?

How so? How would you be penalised for pursuing a genius woman? Fluid is a +1 attribute for women... and a +2 attribute for men. Not even social class affects that (though species will). Where does the penalty come in? how is freedom undermined?

There are no limits. Seriously, powerful characters can have attributes exceeding 100. Nothing limits this.

But 'exploring' the character concept of a strong woman in a world predominated by strong men isn't - or rathr is discouraged. That's an entirely arbitrary game dsign choice, with n systematic justification.

Then I'm not sure what the modifiers in chaacter generation do. Do they or do they not make some female character concepts less effective choices in the game?

Reading the section on character concept I as a player am likely to form expectations about the character creation rules in terms of enabling character concept (especialy with respect to female characters) that are at variance with the way the rules actualy direct and channel player choices. In fact the choice of character concept is anything but free, but this isn't made clear.

(especialy with respect to female characters)

[stares at stopwatch] 4... 3... 2... 1... time to post!

(Just kidding, actually I started thinking about this post 2 days ago.)

Ben, there’s a point you've asserted repeatedly in this thread:

The game does not curtail the choices at all, it merely implies focus for avenues of pursuit.

Gender does notimpinge on playability or character effectiveness, it only provides differing potential for success in various avenues of pursuit.

Given the terminology of "more expensive", I'm guessing that you ahve read my topic in Indie Design? If not, I apologise for the following: I'm afraid you may have misinterpreted the mechanics as I have presented them. They don't work by making things more expensive, but instead by making it easier to focus in certain areas. It does this because if you raise a +! attribute by 1 point at the standard cost of 3 GP, then you get a bonus 1 for free (that's the +1 part). If you buy points in a 0 attribute, you don't get a bonus. The analogy I gave in a recent post was "kind of like a father who tells his daughter that for every dollar she saves, he will put a dollar in her account. But nothing stops her from spending it instead.

Reading this post, I'm starting to wonder if the whole problem might be simply that different people like different kinds of games.

What I mean is (and this might be covered in the GNS theory -- I haven't finished reading those articles yet) some people like detailed rules that "make sense." That is, rules that are based on reality. Others like less detailed, cinematic rules. Personally, I prefer the latter. However, if I were playing in a game with detailed, "realistic" rules, I would work within that construct.

For example, I just played in a Sorcerer game where my character was a teenage female cheerleader. She had a high Stamina, which made sense for the character. But that meant that she was better in a fight than most adult males in the game. That doesn't seem realistic (at least to me). But it was fine for the type of game. Accurately mapping reality is not central to Sorcerer.

However, if I were to play the same character in a game designed to accurately map reality, I would expect rules to exist that would avoid this situation. Specifically, in such a game, I would expect a teenage female cheerleader to be good at cheerleading, but not necessarily a good fighter. If I wanted to play this character with high levels of kick-assitude, I'd expect to pay more for it than if I had a male teenage football player character. I wouldn't be offended by such rules in this type of game.

As to everyone who feels that this is limiting to character "freedom," c'mon people. To quote our president (who'd have thought I'd ever do that?), "There out to be limits to freedom." Sure, I could decide that I wanted to play a halfling with the strength of a giant. Is my "freedom" being impinged upon when the GM tells me I'm a crack-smoking idiot and that I need to come up with a more realistic concept? Maybe, but I think that's a good thing. At least in most games. If that were a game which encouraged unrealistic/funny concepts, that'd be another matter. But in a game which makes an attempt to simulate reality, it's perfectly justified for the GM to deny such a concept. Just like it's okay for the rules to limit other unrealistic concepts.

As to gender being a special case, I'd argue that, in fact, it's not. Mechanically speaking, at least. If people have a tough time coming to terms with that, then they need to work out those problems on their own. It's not the designer's duty to make a game where everyone's ideologies are incorporated. If you're offended by a game mechanic, don't play.

On the other hand, having modifiers based on sex, but not on social class, does seem pretty inconsistent to me, from a mechanical point of view.

Walt Freitag wrote: You can say you want to focus on or encourage certain avenues of pusruit by making them require less effort or resources, or you can say you want to punish or discourage the complementary avenues of pursuit (the avenues not in that "encouraged" group) by making them require more effort or resources, and there’s absolutely no difference in the reality whichever way you say it.

Mary Kuhner wrote: Never make something expensive when you really want to make it impossible!

If having a character hyper-specialize in something breaks your game,
the best thing to do is set hard limits. No matter how expensive you
make it, you'll always have to worry that someone will still manage to
get it, and your game will then be broken.

However, I'd like to stress that (a) this is in principle a valid concern and way to focus a game, and (b) there may be better ways to achieve this.

Never make something expensive when you really want to make it impossible!

I think this may apply here as well.

Would a system work for you wherein a randomly generated female NPC will have - on average - a lower strength than a random male -- but where a female PC can be as strong as a male PC, at no extra cost?

Thus your system has exactly "The Problem" that your initial post describes for other systems.

That the deal might balance out in the end, in terms of overall potential effectiveness, is beside the point. One could similarly argue that a +2 strength for males in AD&D wouldn't be a problem if there were also a +2 in intelligence for females, because magic ability is just as much of a focus of the game as combat ability is. But what if I want to play a female fighter? "That's fine with me, you just have to pay more" is not a valid answer on the designer's part. It is, in fact, an oxymoron. That I have to pay more for the female fighter means that it is not, in fact, fine with you; you've seen fit to penalize me for it.

The difference is that most players simply don’t care as much about the social class or species of the characters they play as they do about the gender.

Hello,

Ben, perhaps it's time to review your goals for this thread.

1. Are you looking for agreement? Then I agree specifically with all of the points in your latest post. Fully.

2. Are you looking for approval of these specific mechanics in your game? Then I approve. Yes, actually, I do. Why? Because it's your game and if these features satisfy #1 above for you, then they bloody well do.

3. Are you looking for reasons why people might disagree with you about that? You've found some - but why you seem compelled to defend yourself against such disagreements is completely opaque to me. It even seems masochistic: "Object to my notion X," then, "Your objection is not valid from my standpoint!"

I think that one of the reasons some of the folks posting here might seem argumentative or stubborn to you is that they want their comments acknowledged by you. You did ask for comments. You got them. This obliges you to say "thank you" and to acknowledge your understanding of these points both socially and intellectually. You certainly don't have to agree, and they didn't ask for that: just that you get what they said.

When people offer up their judgments on request in good faith, they are making themselves vulnerable to you. When you rapidly and fiercely attack the judgments or insist that they don't apply to you, it's abusing that vulnerability.

You certainly don't have to defend any of your preferences or goals for the game, or your sense of how the mechanics reinforce them.

So: since I can't see any particular reason for this thread to continue, unless you provide a clear goal for the discussion beyond "You attack me and I'll defend myself," then it'll have to get closed.

Best,
Ron

Edit to note: cross-posted with Ron; (very) roughly similar points made.

Ben wrote: No, The Problem isn't a matter of differing effectiveness, it is a matter of how that difference impacts the focus of the game. D&D is combat focused, so any difference that impacts combat will face The Problem. Because Eclipse has many foci, the two most important being combat and social interaction, then if one type of thing (gender in this case) is better than the other at combat, but worse at social interaction, whilst the reverse is true of the other type of thing, then there is no Problem. It becomes instead a matter of preferred choice of where you want to focus, and the best choices to achieve that focus.

One thing that could be addressed here (and is, but is being drowned out by the noise of flames) is: What is a char-gen system for, anyway? In order to see whether stats for gender differences are appropriate for your game, you should answer this first.

Some possible goals for char-gen systems are:

A char-gen system is meant to allow specialization while preserving balance, so that
the group has a mix of abilities but no one character overwhelms the others. This allows
the spotlight to move between characters in a way that promotes group cohesion, and allows players to enjoy being in both actor and audience stance.

For balance, I don't think gender bonuses/penalties are appropriate for meeting this goal, whether or not they reflect real-world differences. To be less controversial than using gender as an example, a peasant won't get the opportunity to learn courtly ettiquette. But does that mean that it should COST MORE to be a peasant who knows courtly ettiquette than to be a noble who knows courtly ettiquette? Since the peasant won't be able to take advantage of this skill nearly as often as the noble would, it would seem from a pure balance issue that if any difference exists, it should be less expensive for the peasant.

On the other hand, there's also the question of niche creation and preservation. Maybe
you want the gun-moll to fill a different role in the party than the bootlegger. That's a legitimate use of gender differences, but again I'm not sure that having different COSTS for abilities is the best way to do this (although it is certainly a common way of enforcing niches, e.g., RoleMaster has different costs for skills based on templates.) I think absolute prohibitions, like in John's game, are more effective at niche-protection. If you want to be a Frankish sorceress, then by definition you are female. Other niches can be either gender, and for those niches there is no mechanical distinction.

When using gender distinctions for niche creation, though, you might want to think about the following: Is cross-gendered playing encouraged/typical in your game circles? If not, are there a variety of niches available for both genders? Are there niches that would appeal to different tastes available to both genders? If not, you'll lose players who don't like to play against gender and don't like the options available to them.

A second role for char-gen is: A chargen system communicates to the players information about the setting and scope of in-game activities. If there's a seduction skill, then seduction is a possible event in the game. If all dwarves have an affinity for stonework, that communicates that mining is important in dwarf culture. For this, I don't thin a cost differential is the best way to communicate gender differences in your game. I think it is simpler to say: When picking your strength, consult the following
chart. 9 represents the typical strength of an adult woman; 11 the typical strength of an adult male, 16 is the strength of the strongest woman in town; 18 that of the strongest man. That communicates what's going on in your setting better than giving men a
+1 and women a -1, without limiting player's choices.

Communicating information about your world is a two-edged blade. It is communicating your beliefs about gender differences in your world. If your players then ask, ``Why are
women typically more beautiful than men in your world?'' and you answer, ``Because that's realistic. Everyone thinks women are more beautiful'' be prepared for arguments.
In my experience, this is simply not a true statement. If you instead say, ``Because in my world, most men only bathe once a month, but women bathe routinely as part of washing chores'' then you have made it part of your particular setting rather than a claim about real life. They can then choose to be a clean, beautiful, vain man, but they'll realize that that's not considered ``manly'' in your society.

A third role for chargen is to enforce genre. If you want to play in a game that feels like a
faerie tale, players cannot play good-hearted ogres. So ogres must be evil. If you want to have your game feel like an Icelandic saga, you cannot have women be heads of households or men be magicians, although you can have strong-willed women warriors.
Many genres are the reflection of the sexist societies that these genres arose in. If you want to play in a dramatically sexist genre, like Mickey Spillane PI book or romance novel, you then need to answer the question: Why? Why do you want to play that particular genre, and why should it appeal to a broad collection of players? Also, I think prohibitions are more appropriate for enforcing genre conventions than cost differences.

I'm sure there are many other goals for a chargen system that I haven't thought of.
What are your goals? Why is price differences the best way of acheiving them?

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

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

For example, in my Vinland campaign I had no strict mechanics regarding attributes and skills based on the sex of the character (other than the magic restriction). However, the result was not that people made muscle-bound women warriors. The female PC stats were generally consistent with stereotype. Even Thorgerd, who passed as a man in disguise for a while and wielded a sword, was only average Strength.

Russell Impagliazzo wrote: A third role for chargen is to enforce genre. If you want to play in a game that feels like a faerie tale, players cannot play good-hearted ogres. So ogres must be evil. If you want to have your game feel like an Icelandic saga, you cannot have women be heads of households or men be magicians, although you can have strong-willed women warriors.

Russel and John, your comments about chargen are perfectly valid and I would love to address them, but I think they are more relevant to this thread. So if you copy these posts there I will be better able to answer them and give the response they deserve.

I'm telling you that potential players/purchasers will dislike them, that reviewers will compete with each other to see who can condemn them the most forcefully, and that most players who do play your game will ignore them.

Ben, perhaps it's time to review your goals for this thread.

Ravien wrote:
Indeed, and it's a shame. On no other issue would a game be condemned irrespective of the quality of design.

1. Has anyone attempted to use gender mechanics in their games? If so, why, if not, why not?

2. Are games typically focused in such a way that gender mechanics invariably result in The Problem?

3. What is your personal attitude towards gender being mechanically salient within a game?

Ok, a few minutes after submiting my last post I requested for Ron to officially close this thread, but it seems I missed him.

Not at all; I would take iut as indicative of quality. It would suggest to me the author has a private agenda distinct from the production of an RPG. Given some of your remarks, I think that agenda is to 'strike a blow' against 'political correctness'. I regard this as naive, as a sort of spoilt child behaviour.

Ben's call for closure is now confirmed by me.

Best,
Ron