-4 Strength

4d4? 20d2?

Less aggressive and risk-taking by default, which is why almost all major discoveries or explorations are done by men. It comes with being physically weaker and more reproductively vital. Not many women are inclined to go bushwacking through an unknown tropical jungle or poke crocodiles with a stick, for good or ill.

Also, if you wanted it to be more of a balanced autism than a purely realistic autism, you should probably bring all the +-2s down to +-1s, since otherwise being female would be equal to being a midget, and male with half-orc, in terms of stat adjustment.

Either way, shit thread. I suggest posting musclegirls, but I lack any.

Relevant information. In hunter gatherer societies women generally do the gathering. This is a safe and relatively easy activity which can provide consistent calories. Often there is enough forage that men could gather as well, but they don't. Men almost always choose to hunt, a risky activity that often fails to provide food. It's not because they need thw meat, they could live off of the forage, in fact they do when they fail to catch anything, they do it for the prestige. You can't tell me that passing up easy food and risking going hungry because your in a dick measuring contest with the guy in the next cave over isn't low wis.

...

Here's a free (You).

Too late. It's happening. Flee while you are still sane.

Which species are we talking about here?

Using only d6s in chargen makes it simpler, especially with modifier rolling schemes, so if you default to 4d6 drop 1, you would roll female Int with 6d6 drop lowest 2 and highest 1. Compare to the numerical hoops you would have to jump through otherwise.

Also, tend to have slightly better social intelligence and (IIRC) color perception. All of which is part of the really weird blob that is "Wisdom"

Low wis and low int.

I can understand using your free time to hunt. Nothing wrong with a hobby that pays off. But wasting time on sport when there's work to be done is just short sighted and lazy.

fpbp

woman ARE more social than men.

So do halfling men get -6 to str, with halfling woman getting a -10?

Thing is, that one animal will feed you your woman and your friends. It makes you popular, and that plays an important part in group politics. It's not stupid per see, it's just not optimal. And these people are hardly starving, or even scraping to get by. Tribal hunter gatherers actually have more free time than citizens of first world countries in most cases. It doesn't take long to forage their caloric needs.

...

Again, less risk-taking, but if all we ever did was what would fill our bellies humans would still be hunter-gatherers today. Women take the safe and easy path, but it doesn't do anything more than maintain the status quo. Little ambition.

So, the average human woman is as strong as an Atomie, a CR 1 fey two size categories smaller than her? She is closer to the strength of a housecat than a baseline str 10 individual. That seems a BIT extreme.

You seemed to have missed this part:
>I can understand using your free time to hunt. Nothing wrong with a hobby that pays off. But wasting time on sport when there's work to be done is just short sighted and lazy.

As a side note, from someone who regularly hunts for sport, you're grossly overestimating how "popular" a good kill makes you. Especially when it's a treat and not a need. My carpentry projects make me more popular than any single buck on my wall.

Now, gossiping, cooking, weaving, bearing/raising of children. All of these things strengthen social bonds far more than any hunt ever could. With the acceptation of say herd runs/mass slaughter.

>Women take the safe and easy path
What fake history is getting force fed down your throat?

Could you at least have the manners to swallow it instead of puking it all over everyone else?

You live in a fucking first world country you dipshit. That kill means a hell of a lot more when it's the only meat your group has had in a while and you share it around. This is fucking anthropology. I'm not talking out my ass, people have researched this.

You've taken crazy pills brother.

-33% strength/toughness/whatever.
Very large social/charisma bonuses in a variety of situations.

Then depending on local culture you could have various other social benefits in exchange for drawbacks.

Where do you live user? What degrees do you have? What scholarly research are you basing your views on? Do you know anything about premodern societies that you didn't learn from Veeky Forums?

You're talking out of ass buddy. If you're going to shit, go do it somewhere else.

>hunting for sport
>acception
>fake history

-2 int

>inb4 user links to a study that was completed in the 40's

Midwest. College graduate. Anthropology minor. I can give you the names of the relevant ethnographies and studies if you want to educate yourself. Or you can keep your delusions and your sense of self importance. Your choice.

pics or you're lying

I'd actually relish the opportunity to learn more from this board. Care to share your studies and maybe critical responses to them?

Women have a tendency not to report such things.

Their accidents are more common and easily avoidable things.

Men's accidents are deadlier but less common and usually pointless.

She's going to sideswipe your parked shit in a parking lot because muh phone. He's going to wrap himself around a tree at a hundred plus because she's a show off.

If your willing to keep an open mind rather than just screech at me in ignorance I suggest you read pic related. Published in 04, no ancient research from the 40s here. It was one of my textbooks, and I kept it because it was quite well done. It's a fairly comprehensive ethnography on the Mukogodo and Maasai, and the author is in good standing in the community. Of the two the Mukogodo are the hunter gatherers, so you should probably focus on those sections.

Well what do you want to know? Different family structures? How people feed themselves? Politics in different types of societies? What?

>Lee Cronk
>Collaborated on a fraudulent paper on the relationship between body symmetry, dancing, and sexual selection.

Not what I want to see from an author. But I'll give it a shot.

It was -4 to *max* strength, if you rolled under a 15 your strength wasn't effected.
If you rolled a 15 your strength was (essentially) unaffected, 15 Str and 14 Str had identical bonuses.

But yes, 10-in-216 female characters had marginally worse chances to force open stuck doors.
4-in-216 even missed out on noteworthy attack bonus!

>it took them 8 years after publication of the paper—and five after we submitted a retraction and 4 and a half years after we published PROOF of fraud (later borne out by Rutgers’ investigation) for them finally to “retract” a paper now cited 136 times

>part of the long delays is that the journal really sees no upside to admitting fraud and then one of the co-authors Lee Cronk unaccountably defended the fraudster William Brown to the bitter end

>here is what happened at the bitter end; this was Nature’s suggested wording:
“Since publication of the Letter, it has come to our attention that
certain aspects of data handling and treatment make the conclusions of the report unsound.”

> Brown and Cronk’s data set have 65 fraudulent entries which are internally inconsistent, that is, contradicted as impossible by the rest of their
data set

Good standing may be a bit of a stretch applied to Cronk, no?

"Some caveats though. Cronk is muddled in his discussion of the adaptive nature of female-biased childhood sex ratio and genetics underlying behavioral traits.
1. Adaptive nature of female-biased sex ratio (pg 124). Cronk is correct that the female-biased sex ratio is not an individual feature, but one of the group. The more accurate question is whether the female-biased CARE is adaptive. The group selection argument is a red-herring (although group-selection should not be dismissed offhand in the way Cronk dismisses it - see work of David Sloan Wilson).
Now, is female-biased CARE adaptive? Cronk has been building up to this case for most of the book, and then reaches the wrong conclusion. Just because a cost-benefit analysis (conscious or not) is put into giving less care to boys, and all else being equal parents would prefer to have their boys live as well, says virtually nothing about if the trait is an adaptation or not. Most all evolved traits represent trade-offs and maximizing fitness. Just because in this case little boys are suffering and dying does not mean this feature is not adaptive. Female-biased care is unlikely to be adaptive for the boy who is receiving less care (although it might be due to kin-selection). Cronk makes a strong case that it is adaptive for the parents..even if he dismisses his own case for dubious reasons.

(tbc)

This guy is right. Even without his credentials he's clearly correct. Huge difference between bringing home meat in the stone age and bringing it home now, when you can just go to the supermarket and get a good cut for five bucks. If you guys don't understand this you're retarded.

cont.

"2. Genetics of daughter favoritism (pg 125). Cronk is very likely correct that genetic differences do not underlie the daughter favoritism, but that instead this is a facultative trait. Given the rapid emergence of this trait and the interbreeding of Mukogodo with other groups that do not favor daughters, genetic differences are very unlikely to be important. However, his wholesale dismissal of a role for genes is folly. Genetically, Mukogodo are CERTAINLY different from you and me (despite Cronk's contention to the contrary). Yes, ~99.9% of genetic material is similar across all humans. However, with ~6 billion base pairs in a genome, ~0.1% represents a lot of potential differences. With genes often being scores of thousands of basepairs long, the potential for functional genetic polymorphisms is great. A mutation at a single base pair is capable of causing fatal diseases. Genetic polymorphisms have been associated with pair-bonding behaviors and feelings about having children. Additionally, tentative evidence of differential fitness based upon genetic polymorphisms associated with behavior have been found.

While Cronk writes a strong book that I will consider assigning to undergraduates in future courses, it is disappointing to see him make the fallacious statements outlined above."

(end)

>you get all the calories and nutrients you need with just gathering
>hunted meat is incredibly valuable and not a leisurely activity

pick one.

>What fake history is getting force fed down your throat?

Name a single time a nation's women decided, en-mas, to physically fight a war on their own behalf instead trying to shame men into it. Name a single nation with a long tradition of near or exclusively-female leadership that has ever achieved anything noteworthy militarily, politically, or scientifically. Name a single military or expeditionary force organized, supplied, and crewed exclusively by women across all of time.

Because swap women for men and I can name all of those things easily.

No penalties should apply. A halfling is the size of a 5' year old child and only takes 0 to -2.

It was never anything, why do you guys spread utterly bizarre lies? I don't get it.

What did I say about swallowing? If you can't do that, at least excuse yourself like a gentleman.

I won't deny that getting tarred with that brush didnt help his reputation, but he wasn't the one who falsified the results. Brown did. Cronk took a hit sure, but his work with the Mukogodo and Maasai is still considered quite good.

The book itself has some contested material in it, but if you just want to understand the division of labor and substinance patterns in hunter gatherer societies, which was the relevant issue at hand, it has good material.

>what buffs do they get

kek
You really think "-4 strength" exists because of realism? Or balance?

>B-But men and women are exactly the same th-thing

Kek, you literally have nothing but your propaganda spew. You have no facts, ergo you cannot display any. Sad!

>Sad!
Go back to your twitter feed rusky.

>B-But mean and women are exactly the s-same

Kek, you literally have no facts. All you have is your propaganda spew. Sad!

A simple arm wrestling contest between, say, 100 men and women of similar age and physical condition can easily prove it is,

Go back to the synagogue, Shlomo.

>Double posting

So does the Kremlin pay you per (you) or by the post?

freaky

>Oy vey, you posted twice goyim. This makes a = not a.

Kek.

You're both wrong, for however little it's worth.

On a far more interesting line of discussion,
You know that D&D existed before WotC purchased the intellectual property
for it and slapped it on to their half-baked Fallout tie-in RPG, right?

it tastes good. It was a luxury good. Surely your shrunken brain can understand this?

So by the post then. Well hopefully they'll put you on salary soon comrade.

So we agree that hunting for meat is a luxury and not a requirement then. Took you long enough.

Ah hell this is a shit show. Who wants to talk about W.E.I.R.D. nations?

Nah, they're way too jewy to pay anything.

He's right though. Men have always shouldered the vast majority of risk, often by choice.
You can't just ignore this by saying "fake history" over and over again.

I don't think you're attacking the right person here... It doesn't seem like you have any idea what's going on

Tell me about WEIRD nations user.

Also, do we ever expect anything else from these threads?

Especially when everyone on Veeky Forums has a PhD in everything and is also a starving Nigerian prince.

meant for

He didn't though. He said that woman as a whole never take any risk. This is wrong.

Then he moved the goal post again. Can't really have a conversation with the guy at this point.

user this may be out of character for this board but I'm glad you're here. You seem like a reasonable, discerning person who's willing to engage on the merits and can cite scholarly sources. I've been coming here for years and your kind is unfortunately rare here.

Thanks.

>Russians
>Jewy

What world do you live in?

WEIRD is an acronym used by anthropologists. It stands for western educated industrialized rich and democratic. Put quite simply, from an anthropological point of view we are odd ducks. Quite literally"weird". We developed pretty differently compared to most cultures. Of course we view our culture as normal, even though it isn't.

Thus is related to why some people don't trust the results of psychology studies, because most of them are done with a test pool of college students within a narrow age range inside wealthy nations, which is not really terribly representative of humanity as a whole.

Name one time when they have en-mas then, dipshit. It's quite simple. A war of women, an exploration ship full of women, a matriarchal country embracing risk-taking... just one.

Except you can't.

>I will continue to ignore the woman who fought and died in various theaters during the 20th century because these woman don't fit my narrow definition of what a woman is.

Go on.

Most historians and experts from related fields would tell you that a true matriarchal society has never existed on this planet. There may be varying degrees of prominence for women in patriarchal societies but none which place the role of women above men.

Unless you have an example of a matriarchal society?

Thanks, I'm really nothing special. I just remembered a few things from an old anthropology course I thought might be relevant and figured I'd throw my two cents in. I'd really rather not get caught up in the usual arguement, even though I do have an opinion. It's rather pointless since both sides are deeply entrenched in their own points of view. It's just the same old back and forth.

maybe if they had stayed home instead of going to the movies all the time they'd still be alive

Would you consider monogamy to be the norm for human beings?

Once again, when did they do so on their own impetus, en-mas?

Why not? I thought women did not posses -4 str? Surely by sheer chance if nothing else some cabal of women, somewhere, should have stumbled into power, no? Or overthrown their wicked patriarchal oppressors as a revolutionary army?

Gee, I wonder why not of that ever happened.

Most historians/social scientists don't even agree on what a "true matriarchal society" would be. Is it a society structured for the "benefit" of woman or is it a society centered around woman as an authority.

As a polyamorous American my bias requires I answer "no"

I honestly don't know.

Yawn.

How often does this thread get made, again?

Three times a day. Four if user is desperate for cock.

Most agree it would be a society with women as authorities and enjoying a higher social status than men. Admittedly a hard thing to quantify but there's a reason social sciences are called "soft sciences"

There's at least one every couple weeks.

Not surprising really, its at least 300 guaranteed replies.

>"soft science"
God I hate this term.

I can appreciate applying the scientific method and critical thinking. But that term just annoys the shit out of me.

85ish and counting user.

>What buffs do they get?
Wait for a man to put them in charge, make them the dominant militant group and have them worship said man.

Women are less wise and less intelligent. Are you a fucking feminist or something? Read the fucking bell Curve.

>DURR U FAKE LOL I HAVE NO ARGUMENT
Why not just not post at all, since you clearly don't know anything about what's being discussed.

Slow morning lads?

>WAAAAA WHAT ARE STATISTICS
Feminist proven. Fuck off.

>still no argument, no refutation, and no proof of his own claims
Fuck off back to tumblr.

>Or you could just do away with the concept all together.
this tbqh

The answer is no. not really. Cultures that advocate Monogomy are less numerous than cultures that practice alternatives (although this has changed with the spread of western ideology to some extent), and societies that do have a cultural bias towards monogamous relations tend to practice what is known as "serial monogamy," meaning that while they may only be with one partner at a time they don't stay with them very long.

Did you know that in Tibet there was a practice where brothers would share the same wife? One woman would marry an entire family of male siblings. This of course is the odd man out. Polygamy with one man and multiple wives is a dominant model. Although how it is practiced varies. For instance in New Guinea among the Trobrianders only the chief may have more than one wife. Which is actually an important part of their political and social structure because it keeps him wealthy and powerful relative to the rest of the village.

There is a matriarchal group in China who practice what is called "walking marriages" which is for all intents and purpose free love.

Sexual relations are weird. And fascinating. I was surprised how much of the discipline revolves around sex. sometimes it feels like half of it comes back to sex.

Forgive the tangent.

Yep, slow morning.

This board will never change but posts like yours are the reason I keep coming back despite the obvious trolls. I've always had a soft spot for anthropological/historical/archaeological research being incorporated into my games and anytime someone brings that to this board it's a net benefit.

Still sad.

Go on. Tangents are fine.

Drowns out the retards.

>And what debuffs/buffs do males get?
-6 or -7 to CHA.
Might as well go the whole 9 yards. Try getting your way as a man, then getting your way as a woman. Even a horrendously ugly woman will be a stronger roll for things like sympathy or lying.

Honest question, what do they pay you per post?