How equal are the sexes in your setting, Veeky Forums?

Most bipedal races have an advantage towards males as far as physical abilities go, up to a point. See, social clout manifests as magic enhancements for exceptional people, meaning that you will often see well known female warriors who are capable of feats of strength most men could never dream of doing.

>sexes
>his main choice of PC/NPC races aren't hivemind rocks, shapeshifting parasites or eldritch horrors
You must be living a boring life.

Also, pic very related.

Magic

Women can do pretty much anything men can, not because of any bogus empowerment message but because in this setting, anyone can fly or become solid living gold or throw ki blasts in the shape of the word "PUMP IT UP" if they try hard enough.

And the main thing that turns you into a PC is trying. A lot.

Women can get pregnant but are slightly heartier and heal faster. Men can impregnate and can't be forced into back to back orgasms but cum faster.

>men can't be forced into back to back orgasms
Sounds like women in your setting are awful lays.

Depends on the setting, the location within the setting, and what I'm bothering with at any given time.

You see, OP, I am actually creative and intelligent enough to not be limited to one single idealized version of any given reality, so your question, bait worthy as it is, is irrelevant to anything that happens in any game I ever run, because there are so many answers you could never actually manage to reach a point where your bait would mean anything other than pointless noise.

Eh I needed to give -some- kind of bonus to males to balance it out a bit. I haven't quite figured out whether that actually means they can't orgasm more than once per round or once per attack/combo.

Talk shit get hit.
Everyone has to pull their own weight and show their worth, in physical and intellectual affairs not even nobles are considered useful until proven useful.
Homely men and women are not considered lessers, but investigative academics, adventuring, monster hunting and the like are fetishized a lot so of course people want to give it a try no matter their gender.

That's about it, women's physical weakness is not handwaved but it's not spotlighted all the time either because guns, magic, trap setting, tracking, strategizing and academics don't necessarily require or benefit from you being 7'2 and 380 pounds of muscle.

Not equal at all. Just like in real life.

Humans are not an endangered species in any social setting and in turbo-grimdark the world is gonna end in cthonicmadnessbloodchaosdarkesspiss the hero's gender matters nothing because the failure of an individual means the end of existance not just that she's not gonna live to have 2.5 kids.

Equal for what? Almost any metric of equality varied across the setting, but do you mean politically?

>playing just one setting

Do you mean "how equal as to how they're treated by society" or "how equal are they in capabilities"?

Right now I've got two settings so I'll break this up.

>first setting
Societal gender parity has been achieved on paper but not in practice. Men tend to be taken more seriously and given more respect; women tend to be objectified and given less to do. So it's shadows of real life but toned down significantly.

Men, on average, are bigger and stronger than women, but that, too, is relaxed. The world's strongest women are on the same level as the world's strongest men. So if you imagine twin graphs of physical strength, men's is roughly the same approximately normal distribution; women's has the same median (not mean) as in real life but skewed so there are more individuals on the stronger end. I realize this would be clearer with a visual aid but I'm lazy.

>second setting
Gender roles still exist, but they're much looser. Typically you won't refer to, say, "the baker"; you'll refer to "the bakers", as both husband and wife (or husband and husband or wife and wife) share responsibility for the craft. One parent will typically be somewhat less involved in the business than the other and more involved in childrearing and housekeeping, and this is the mother more often than it's the father, but that's about the extent of it.

There was a population boom in the setting relatively recently, so children from larger families may pursue careers other than their parents' . Inheritance can run through just about any child, just depending on who decides to pick up their parents' craft.

Men are, again, physically stronger an average; women are more magically adept. Professional magic users tend overwhelmingly to be women and accomplished male mages are the exception, not the rule. The military (excluding the Mage Corps) is 70% male; the Mage Corps is 85% female.

Setting 2 was specifically designed with the purpose of being cozy as fuck.

I choose all my NPCs' genders by flipping a coin because it matters that little.

Setting 2 sounds really cute.

That's the idea. Pretty much any setting I concoct will be more on the cozy side than not (since I think it raises the stakes by giving the players a world worth protecting compared to if everything would just be shit anyway), but Setting 2 just goes all the way with it.

Like, I also write smut, and the story for which Setting 2 exists is functionally smut except the goal emotion is "cozy" rather than "horny".

You should write hybrid stories, cozy smut. I think that would be apex storytelling

I agree wholeheartedly. I mean, my smut is pretty cozy already, to be fair. I love me some affectionate domination.

And I had a similar idea, actually, for a separate (and smuttier) story set within Setting 2.

Also I haven't written it out properly but I do have this:

>Choose your Own Orgasm

I've considered doing something on Twine but I don't have that much discipline.

I'm a much better writer when I can collaborate with someone. It's hard to do that with smut.

I'm glad you like it.

Gender doesn't matter much, at least in terms of adventurers and nobility. The peasantry are all scrubs and subscribe to more traditional gender roles.

The -4 str becomes less important when effectively anybody is capable of learning how to break entire cities over their knee if they have enough fighting spirit and willpower.

Are we talking equality of opportunity, or equality of outcome?

I think we can all tell where you're trying to take this.

Up his butt?

No. Well, maybe. But that's not what I meant.

I really wish more RPGs encouraged you to play non-humanoids.

Entirely variable based on setting, character, and players' general dispositions. Don't wave away differences, but explore their expression via play and story.

Anyone creeching about either their specific simulacrum of realism or IRL gender relations can get out of my living room. I have a setting here. I want to see your characters navigate it. Convince me, either by dice or by due rebuttal.

Both

>"in your setting"
>gives a "depends on the setting" answer

A lot of traditional gender roles (traditional defined by country), but the sheer amount of nonhumans, magic, divine gifts, and ki bullshit running around means that there's a pretty decent number of powerful women in the world.

Women are weaker within the setting but this rule does not apply to adventurers since such people are meant to be truly exceptional humans.

Player characters are ostensibly treated as the same regardless of gender, though NPC reactions to them may vary for obvious reasons.

Whereas my NPCs generally subscribe to -4STR etc.
Women are generally the pursued party in romance. While men tend to occupy more important leadership positions (though not overwhelmingly so). Families usually have the father working and the mother homemaking.
And basically all the other gender roles that her persisted throughout most of human history are present. Men do harder, more dangerous jobs for more benefits. Nurses are more likely to be women, etc. etc.
In the military, direct combat roles are overwhelmingly (practically 100%) male occupied. All other roles (support/pilots etc.) are about 10% female.
Magic users are a 50/50 split, but males do tend to gravitate more towards direct combat usage whereas women prefer support usage, but this isn't skewed enough to make female combat mages uncommon (relatively speaking, as magic users in general are rare).

I've only once had players be dissatisfied with this, but it was resolved quickly.

Males tend to be more powerful and influential than female, but it's the hyper-males who really dominate society.

sexes are equal, but only if you can fucking fight. You let people take advantage of you you're shit class.

Why were they dissatisfied and how was it resolved?

Outside of female slaves being more valuable they are equal.

Depends on species, culture, and how they interpret the various faiths of the setting.

About as equal as they can be when the main religion is for a goddess and the ladies handle whatever job they want while the males are generally scripted into hard labor jobs, with plenty of exceptions on either side.
Of course when you toss an elf into that mix, suddenly the goddess is getting cussed at, death threats are tossed around by the pious, and no one knows quite what to do with a smartass that can teleport and has an amulet of genderbending.

They started asking why the frontline infantry they were working with were all male, sort of jokingly at first ("man this unit is a sausagefest" etc.).
Then they asked for a reason and I casually explained that frontline combat units are all male because they're better at it physically. One of my players seemed to take umbrage with this, though I wouldn't learn until later. The rest seemed ambivalent or agreeable.

The players ruled their own population, and this one player decided to make an 'amazon' unit (his words) of the hundred strongest women among their people. The other players didn't object, but I think we all knew it was to spite me. Because of the great efforts the player went through to describe his intensive selection process I didn't even give his amazon unit combat penalties.

I've always very viscerally described combat as it happens, with all the unpleasant details. I don't know if the player expected me to tone it down for his amazon brigade when he led their charge into their first battle, but I didn't (maybe to spite him back, but I can honestly say it was no more visceral than normal).

After that they didn't want to replenish the amazon unit or use it again. Was never really brought up again.

Statistically. It's gurps. 0 point difference

I don't wanna tell you how to do your job, but even making it a 90/10 split with a token female soldier NPC would probably reduce that problem.

I'm all for girl power, but it's your prerogative to run your setting how you like (within reason). Just a suggestion.

"Prevent", not "reduce", sorry. I realize it's just the one guy so far.

Literally 100% equal.

My setting only has one continent and everyone has to share the mass of land. There are no natural borders that span enough space to cut off anyone from one another. I figured that logically if all the races never had the opportunity to form their own private countries they would naturally grow to be mutually respected/tolerant. Of course racist sects and cults exist but in terms of the common man and royal policies pretty much anyone can do anything and go anywhere.

Different user, but I don't think tokenism is all that great either.

I have about a 90/10 split among pilots, navy crews, base personnel, and higher level officers.

I don't have women in frontline battle because I don't enjoy describing them screaming for their parents as they clutch to their dismembered limb stumps or eviscerated guts. Neither do my players, if the sudden dropping of their amazon unit was anything to go by.

And yes, I personally think it's immersion breaking to have a unit of dirty, stressed out men just lounge about with women and pretend they're all the same. Especially when the majority of society's men chase women, seek to protect them and generally care more about their wellbeing than men.

My setting's apocalyptic, so it's "Can you do [thing]? If so, great! If not, try to die somewhere else."

Yeah, that's true, it's not. But it might be helpful in this specific case for avoiding that specific problem of someone making a big deal out of the lack of women on the front lines.

The US Army actually did studies that disproved the whole "men are more affected when female soldiers die than male soldiers" thing. But to be clear I'm not taking exception with your setting.

Props to you for letting them stress-test things like that, but if neither they nor you are comfortable with the ramifications then by all means keep things where they're at. Sounds like you run pretty level-headed campaigns overall.

>The US Army actually did studies that disproved the whole "men are more affected when female soldiers die than male soldiers" thing.

Source? I'm genuinely interested because I don't know how you could accurately test that without it actually happening. And I don't remember the US army shipping home any planes full to the brim of dead women recently.

the imperium so... depends on the world. backwards agri-worlds and feral worlds there is more traditional gender roles. In the hives and shrine worlds not so much the imperium is oppressive equally and the cult does not differentiate based on sex.

Well everyone's entitled to their own preferences for their setting, that's why ttrpg's exist.

Thanks user, I think (hope, pray?) that my players enjoy themselves.

It only matters in the context of worldbuilding for me, and even then doesn't matter statistically but culturally.

Statistically there is no difference between a female or a male Dwarf. However, I like my Dwarves having strict gender roles similar to the Norse. Likewise I prefer my Elves have more fluid gender roles, but are distinctly matriarchies.

However, it never matters in the context of PCs, because they're always exceptions.

Women need to have an average of 4-6 pregnancies so that 2 will reach adulthood. The rest will result in stillbirths or won't survive its 1st year.

My game is currently set in an alternate Wilhelmian/Bismarckian German Empire. Gender roles are pretty prevalent, which affects the way players can act in public without comment.
However a bigger indicator of accepted behaviour is class, which intersects with gender.

However these social mores are less prevalent among counter culturals and the avantgarde like the socialists, anarchists, criminals and bohemians that the PCs spend a large amount of their time with, and handling the social expectations put upon them by the people around them is a big part of getting things to work their own way.

However I have never said to any of my players "You can't do that because you're a woman", as soon as I told them the basic idea they've enforced the idea amongst themselves (And my group is majority female), and have had great fun with fooling the silly guy police who don't realize that half a foot long hat pins are fucking daggers.

It saw it in a video from a reputable channel. I'm trying to find it now so I can see what their primary source was.

youtube.com/watch?v=qcoWPpE0EiE

You're thinking of medieval societies IRL. Where clerics can't cast Cure Disease.

but women still need to have 3 or 4 pregnancies on average to keep up with all the owlbears and dragons and whatnot eating people

Who says clerics are common in this setting?

Also the risk of having your baby stolen and replaced with something nasty.

The "good guys" in my setting don't care about gender.

Doesn't matter if you have a dick, as long as you're abstinent/faithful to your spouse and making useful and meaningful contributions to society.

Doesn't matter if you have a cunt, you're gonna get brutally neutered and tortured and have your "playthings" emancipated if you're a decadent freak who keeps sex slaves.

No geographical borders only makes the situation more fluid and wars for dominance more bloody, just see India.

I messed up a little. Apparently it's just that there's no actual evidence that men are more affected by female injury or death than of male injury or death. There haven't been formal studies but collated data has not shown it to be true.

Well part of the campaign took place on Catachan, where every woman has to give birth to at least 10 children just to maintain the population.

Life mostly consisted of perpetually pregnant-or-being-made-pregnant women being protected by men from the marauding wildlife. Of course the sheer lethality of the place has made the women damn hardcore as well, enough to beat the shit out of an average civilised world man thanks to their genetic changes and life experiences.

I'm far too proud of my depiction of a pregnant Catachan woman with two babies on her back and another on her front strangling a tree snake to death. I then described her brief moment of bitter regret and self-blame as she realises one of her babies was killed by it, before she simply dumped the body into the dirt. It really hammered the place home to my players.

Of course there is still conflict and turf war; there just isn't a correlation with race or gender. I don't think there would be anyways.

Honey was our child always green and weigh 30 pounds?

He gets that from your side of the family.

Women fight and bully other women to get rid of competition for potential mates and assure their dominance over other women.

Is that just for the thought experiment of it, magical realm, or a mix of the two? And if a mix, roughly what proportions?

Strongest women will never be as strong as the strongest men.

Okay, I'll bite. Fuck is a roastie?

Just a /r9k/ word for whores.

They are in my setting, much as that seems to upset you.

You have 5 seconds to prove it is.

It's close enough to reality that it doesn't take any adapting from the players but flexible enough that it's doesn't limit player options.

Not that user, though.

On average fairly even. Societal differences tend to be regional in my space setting, same as our world in my supers setting, and the medieval fantasy is where I play around with things a bit more like fiddling about with matriarchal queendoms, council governance, etc.

Setting 2 sounds like shit.

Thank you for your nuanced critique, user.

>There are no natural borders that span enough space to cut off anyone from one another.
When has that ever stopped anyone? There are far more artificial borders than natural.

Depends HEAVILY on the civilization you happen to be in.
Some civs are straight up patriarchies, some are straight up matriarchies, we have meritocracies, some are bizarre theocracies where women and men are both slaves to the church.

Some places have strict gender roles that are more or less equal, some civs are chill about what you want to do.

So really all over the place

If your setting doesn't require any adaptation from the players it's not interesting enough and limitation is key to keeping players from making bland and hollow characters.

>I figured that logically if all the races never had the opportunity to form their own private countries they would naturally grow to be mutually respected/tolerant
Have you ever met a human?

In my setting, men drive the perpetually-pregnant, lobotomized women around like they're chocobos, feeding them dogfood and plugging all their holes up so they can only void when permitted no matter how much their bodies may fail them.

Not very, it's pre-sedentary labor

You're welcome your worthless fuck you.

>Literally 100% equal.
>everyone has to share the mass of land.
>I figured that logically if all the races never had the opportunity to form their own private countries they would naturally grow to be mutually respected/tolerant.

Bitch have you ever read world history? The places with fewer geographic barriers are the most fucked with places on earth due to armies being able to hop from village to village in record time.

Racial equality? The Rwandan genocide was committed over the curvature of a nasal ridge! The Japanese still have ethnic groups inside of Japan that are untouchables that are literally physically and genetically indistinguishable from other japanese. India has a caste system!

Someone has a precious wittle view of the world. Also Santa isn't real and your parents hate each other, and probably you.

...

Sorry, was that supposed to be
>You're welcome, you worthless fuck you.
or
>You're welcome, you're worthless, fuck you.
?

You seem to have made a mistake there.

Human men and women are treated as breeding cattle for all the other races and monsters.

>I don't think there would be anyways.
seen so many people say this stupid shit genuinely lately that I honestly can't tell if you're really this ignorant or if you're trolling

Tell me about your mother user