Males vs females

Nah, it's just in general. Biology can be weird- maybe they prehistorically got in less dangerous situations than men so needed lower danger responses.

Unless any of this "traits" are taken into play as a form of bonuses or mechanics, why is that even matter? This makes no sense. It's a lot of work for absolutely no gain or benefit.

You make a good point here, volatile as it might be.

Adventurous women recently have been described as sort of pseudo-men: strong, armored, going to melee to show themselves as good as the men are. Yet in the end all they're doing is throwing out any strengths they might have only to ultimately be at best still slightly weaker than the male warriors. All the /pol/ bullshit aside, that's fucking boring.

Men and women should be equal but different. Equally represented, equally proactive and adventurous, equally capable - but doing different things, with different strengths and weaknesses.

Y/N?

This is the best post so far. If you want, swap WIS for CHA.

Rolled 17, 50, 59 = 126 (3d100)

Rolling for the number of times OP samefags his thread pretending to be a tumblrtard

>Are there any others that you guys know of?
You're forgetting the big one: male disposability. A woman actually matters purely for existing, a man can jump off a cliff as far as society is concerned (and they do in incredibly numbers!) until they actually do something worth mentioning.

>I'm looking for purely physical/biological/chemical things here, not stuff like "they can flirt their way out of a speeding ticket".
Human sexuality is entirely chemistry though. Remove that, and women are just objectively inferior men.

I'd argue there are two ways to do this

1, Give males +X str, no penalties, and give woman an equal amount to dex and no penalties

2. Give men a higher str cap then woman, and give woman a higher dex cap then men.

Do not assign penalties based on gender, it just triggers the sjw's and /pol/fags.

So then the fact that modern women curl up into a shitball and demand a man to save them when approached with any sort of physical harm is a response to modern simuli?

As if you wouldn't do the same. Women just have a better excuse in having been culturally coddled and protected for a few thousand years.

>As if you wouldn't do the same.
I'm not a woman.

>in having been culturally coddled and protected for a few thousand years.
So then in a modern setting they wouldn't have any sort of higher pain tolerance at all. Any sort of potential biological bonus being removed by the fact that they had to face no serious threat and respond to any sort of physical trauma or threat by breaking down.

He's a /pol/cuck.

Don't feed him.

>He doesn't agree with me.
>Quick, use buzzwords and hope he goes away!

>immune systems
>color coordination
>smell

These are vastly different from person to person, if you're gonna make 'muh wimmen' a thread pick something reasonable.

also
>better tolerance for physical pain
how exactly?

>Men and women should be equal but different.
>Y/N?

Yes. Absolutely yes. I've always been of the position that every choice you make for your character, even their gender, should be meaningful.

I'm not sure if this would fit you criteria, but women are slightly better at reading facial expressions (though they can often get false positives re: men), and are on average better at "social games." There's aslo the fact that testoerone is actually pretty rough on your body(as you already stated, women have better immune systems, that's why).

>>immune systems
>>color coordination
>>smell
>These are vastly different from person to person, if you're gonna make 'muh wimmen' a thread pick something reasonable.

They are, but on average, women tend to do a bit better in these, like men generally have:
>greater skeletal-muscular strength
>greater spacial awareness
>better at mimicking sounds

>I'm Bad At Reading: The Post

Do you not know what "on average" means? Has your 8th-grade math teacher not taught you that yet?

>>women have better tolerance for physical pain

>I'm not a woman.
Sure, but you'd still probably shriek like a little girl if someone threatened you with bodily harm.

>So then in a modern setting they wouldn't have any sort of higher pain tolerance at all. Any sort of potential biological bonus being removed by the fact that they had to face no serious threat and respond to any sort of physical trauma or threat by breaking down.
Just because they might be able to tolerate pain better than you doesn't mean they want to be hurt. If they can jump back and call for someone else to defend them and get away with it without losing face, they will.

I'm on board with this and it's easy to apply it to fantasy settings - just make women more naturally attuned to magic or the spirit world or whateverthefuck. Problem solved.
It's tougher to do in modern settings though.

DO NOT SPEAK THEIR NAME! It summons them, like demons and the fair folk.

>For purposes of a modern-day quasi-realistic campaign
>list of bunch of stat stuff no one will give a single shit about
Sounds like shitty campaign for autistic virgins

One physical advantage that women have over men is that they can have children. This makes it so people treat them differently. I'd make women stronger social characters and men stronger physical characters if I were to differentiate.

Lower the strength score of female player characters by three, but never to less than three. Raise their constitution by one and dexterity by one.

Females get -4 Str, males get -4 Con. Done.

For a magicless setting, I would just go with something like Really it depends on the system and how much crunch/room there is.

lol i've never seen this, what's it from?

Greenland Saga

According to all the previous threads' information that was checked against real life world records.

-1 STR
+1 CHA

>I'm trying to determine a few physical/biological advantages that the average woman has over the average man.
Why would you need it, though?
No, serious question here - why would minor differences between men and women be important for the topic of your campaign?
Is it some sort of communist utopia, where all the other differences such as racial, social, ethnical etc. has been stamped and thus you have to turn to the gender differences?

Besides, a tenner says there is no campaign in reality and the whole story is made up just to being the discussion to Veeky Forums and/or you will not include your findings about men/women into it.

MODS

Also, if you want me to elaborate, regarding what I mean by "why would minor differences between men and women be important for the topic of your campaign", consider the following:

In your bog-standard society, the conflict revolves around either belief or power.
The rift between the rich and the poor, the rift between those with technology/magic and without it, the rift between people with different beliefs and the oppressed and the oppressors.
All these have a lot more impact on the world of the society you are trying to model.
Gender rarely matters aside from gender-specific societal roles (being a mother i.e. the function of being an incubator is one of said roles).

So I have to ask, why is it that in your world the differences between males and females are important enough that you want to center a campaign around it?
And if the campaign is, as you say, features a "quasi-realistic" world, then I don't see the point on focusing on differences between genders, when there are much more interesting and important differences to focus on (the differences of ancestry and upbringing, for one).

>game has pointless modifiers for gender because "muh realism"
>Penhouse Pet of the Month on the cover wearing stripper tunic and what appear to be chainmail thigh-highs
Lol ok

I've spent a lot of time researching and thinking about his due to wanting gender differences in my game, because what's the point of rules in a story telling game if the rules don't help craft the story?

I came to this:
>Men: +1 Physique, +1 Instinct.
>Women: +1 Coherence, +1 Charisma.

So instinct and coherence probably need some explanation. Coherence is a kind of "focus" or "sanity" stat that determines how long your character can stay focused on a task, or how many different things you can focus on at once. As you push the limits of your coherence, or fail coherence checks, you start taking mounting penalties to lots of things due to your character losing clarity and becoming mentally exhausted. In game, this mostly determines: Long-range marksmanship, many kinds of magic casting, most kinds of "will save", and any drawn out effort.

Instinct is a more reactionary, physical kind of intelligence. Used for dodging, short range or high pressure marksmanship, "will saves" against fear, etc. . .

Physique needs no explanation of course. But I guess Charisma could use a note. The stat itself is used for "sense-motive" type checks, to effect others the stat gets broken down into a few substats: charm, dignity, and severity. Men actually end up with higher severity, women end up with higher charm and higher "utility" or "defensive" social abilities due to the higher general charisma stat.

The easiest thing you can get away with, without being decried as sexist, is those sociological differences. If you create a society where very different things are expected of men and women, where men are raised to fight and women raised to intrigue, you can maybe get away with stat differences so long as you portray it as an unfortunate(?) creation of their society.

Otherwise, is your best bet.

It should be charisma, not dexterity.

It's mostly because women would prefer the men to do the fighting for them.

You could do it really simply by giving men higher physical stats and giving women higher mental stats. (Final Fantasy Tactics, for instance, gives male characters higher Brave and gives female characters higher Faith.)

About half of these are false anyway. Most of what you're gonna hear are myths.

The only one that is a myth is the pain tolerence one and maybe sense of smell.

Continuing on from this, if you want to provide equal opportunity for players while recognizing gender differences, consider the following.

Give players different backgrounds to pick from, each offering different stat boosts. They bring suggestions about the character's physical build, and note 'This background is predominantly claimed by males' or some shit like that.

That's almost par for par how I run character creation.

sexual dimorphism is the root of human unhappiness. In an idealized fantasy world humans would not have any sexual dimorphism at all, though such a world would be very alien to most of us who grew up in this imperfect one.

Yup, this is the only way to do it. If you give women bonuses outright over males in any area, it implies women have the advantage there, which is false. Women are equal to men in all areas except strength, but you still need to reflect that people are different and not every male is going to be better than your player character females, who are representing freaks and or people with tons of training over your common man. So just let your players pick two free stats at character creation and call it a background. It's way less hassle than arguing with people over gender anyway.

>Women are equal to men in all areas except strength
hahahaahahah holy shit

>Competent women
I'd be perfectly fine with growing up in an alien world I do not understand.

Women don't have actually better eyesight, but a woman sight is not a tunnel vision as a man's. Their field of view is broader and allows them to see more things with a single glance, while men have a more tunneled vision and are better at spatial reasoning and estimating lenghts

It's true. In real life, anyone can "max" their stats and be relativly on equal footing between the two sexes. Except strength, where no best woman can match the best man.

Social and mental stats don't differ among the top levels. You're still going to have your charasmatic men and women, and although men have more people, high IQs are achievable by women.

Then dex and con are so vastly different between people you can't really claim any significant difference between genders.

Also women are far more durable. Beside the higher tolerance to pain, they can stay active even while ill and can recuperate much faster given the proper rest.

man's pain tolerance instead is purposely lower and tend to make a big fuss about even small couts or a light illness, because they, being the hunters of the hunter/gatherer duo, need to always be in top condiction to work, and the body adapted so that they would not take unnecessary risks

>Wim Hof sets world record for climbing Everest in just his shorts ...

>Women ever maxing con.

I remember a thread a while back where the OP suggested that magic was governed by how many nerve receptors a person had, basically determining their skill at drawing in and expelling mana.

Then someone pointed out how that would make women better mages, since they have twice as many nerve receptors.

Of course, no valuable discussion came from that, because then people started tripping over themselves to try to justify why male wizards would still be common and equal. For example, someone suggested that any men attending a mage school would have secret discoveries they would keep to themselves to amplify their magic. Just like how in real life women in STEM field never have their work used by their male peers.

So in the end there's no point. People will insist one -4 strength, but as soon as you suggest women being better at magic to compensate they lose their minds

Deviant and extremes can be found in both sexes. Only because ONE dude did it, it doesn't mean everyone can
A lot of women climbed the everest, and I am ready to bet none of the strong indipendent guys here could do it in their current physical condition

To have even a remotely relatable set of differences, one must look at the average, not the highest or lowest point

>Then dex and con are so vastly different between people you can't really claim any significant difference between genders.
Yeah, no. In the physical realm, men would out pace women in every single category.

Wombs have inherit value, sperm is cheap.

Pussy costs money/time/energy/effort, dick is free.

Women can decipher the thoughts and emotional states of people just by observing them better than men.

Women excel in psychological and/or emotional torture.

Women have musculature more adjusted for long-term straining, such as can be encountered during cliff-climbing and other physical exercise that's demanding on core muscles than man. In theory this also means women can endure longer/have more stamina on extended physical activities, like marching.

Women can produce milk, which is nutritious, men cannot.

That's literally all I can come up at the moment.

>of course, women are prettier than men

Except long run. Women are always more resilient, even if slower, and have a generally better cardio on average

Talking about comparing two average yet physically trained runners

>Except long run.
You're going to have to provide some type of proof there friendo.

>In theory this also means women can endure longer/have more stamina on extended physical activities, like marching.
I've seen women on route marches. This has to be bullshit.

In humans, there is not a big enough difference between your typical man and your typical woman to matter much. There are just as many insipid men as there are insipid women, and physically, your average peasant girl could do about the same as your average peasant boy.

Now, if you want to chalk up sexual differences in fictional races, go right ahead. They're not real and it won't matter.

>>IN THEORY

I've seen women too irl, wasn't impressed

I got these two things here

>work.chron.com/physiological-differences-between-male-female-athletes-20627.html
>faculty.washington.edu/crowther/Misc/RBC/gender.shtml

I don't know exactly how much of true they are, but most points are similar, explaining both how men are generaly faster, and women generally more resilient

This

Women also tend to be higher-educated, be graded better for the same quality of work, have access to educational resources men don't recieve, and have lower instances of mental issues than men. Women make up the majority of college graduates and students. However, there are also fewer female geniuses.

Women have easier access to safe shelters and support than men. They are less likely to see jail time or go to prison, and when they do tend to have a massively reduced sentance as compared to men.

There are areas women can access than men cannot. The opposite is also true, but those instances are less common. For instance, most gyms have times only women can access them.

Women 1/4th as likely to be the victim of violent crime

Woman live longer than men

They tend to be physically slighter and shorter, which is good if you ever have to break into a house or something.

Women have fewer eye issues and can spot things better

They can also crossdress without fear of being assaulted (or at least looked at weird,) which is actually sort of a big deal in any setting with magic equipment

The deviant/extreme women lifters are equal to like bantam weight men and have no endurance.

>tldr : male soldiers bitching that they want their army to stay a boy's club forever

Indeed, I'm not impressed.

>>male soldiers bitching

Shit, I thought that one was about a female marine bitching about females in the military

They can't throw
They can't run
They can't lift.
They can't deal with the stress
They can shoot, but that's a small part of what a soldier does.
1/10 made me respond

And you are full of shit.
2/10, made me respond as well.

Yeah, no. Not that guy, but I was in the Marine Corps and female Marines are largely worthless.

lowering standards in any physical, high-stress job is never good from a safety point of view

But politics don't really care about that.

Humans don't have strong enough sexual dimorphism to try and come up with different statistics or rules for males or females.

I remember reading somewhere that women have more potential (or something) as swimmers; I think it was that they float better due to something with their body fat?
So something like a small bonus to Swim skill checks wouldn't be out of the question.

Dear mods ?

>But politics don't really care about that.

Reminds me of that story about a fire department that had to fill a minority quota and thus recruited a black guy, who in a time of need refused to go anywhere a burning building. When asked why he said he's afraid of fire.

>your average peasant girl could do about the same as your average peasant boy.

Not really, if we look at the modern world we can see that average man is about as strong as an elite athlete woman.

unz.com/gnxp/men-are-stronger-than-women-on-average/

>women have better immune systems

I've also heard this but apparently they're not

telegraph.co.uk/news/health/10660612/Women-are-almost-42-per-cent-more-likely-to-take-sick-days-than-men.html

>women have better eyesight/ability to differentiate colors (though men can see better in the dark)

That sounds cool but how are you going to implement that in a game? Maybe have plants who are poisinous look very much like the edible ones and women are better at spotting that?

>women have better tolerance for physical pain

Apparently they tolerate pain less than men and use more painkillers in their day-to-day lives

sciencealert.com/do-women-tolerate-pain-better-than-men

>women have a better sense of smell

I really couldn't find much about it, most articles I found was about how men and women smell differently, not about their sense or smell. So I'll take your word for it.

Guys can you stop fighting? It's kinda cringy, instead of going "women are shit!" and "You're sexist!" can you please use articles and sources to back-up your claims?

But we do.

>mfw this an obvious "-4 strenght" thread, and badly disguised at that
>mfw no face

Don't bother. Since you're only concerned with physical differences, there are none that matter to a degree that they merit a mechanical bonus, except that men are much stronger. If women were notably superior at visual tasks you would see them dominating professions that value that trait, but you don't. The whole thing is just going to annoy your players and add nothing to your game.

>can you please use articles and sources to back-up your claims?
npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/10/439190586/marine-corps-study-finds-all-male-combat-units-faster-than-mixed-units

Any male Marine who has served with females could have told you what the results of this ended up being.

Thanks for providing a source

>Overall, according to a summary of the study, all-male squads performed better than mixed groups in 69 percent of the tasks evaluated.

Wow, this is a pretty big drop.

Do you think that the presence of the women make the men perform worse or is the women's lower capabilities the sole reason for the group performing worse?

>Do you think that the presence of the women make the men perform worse or is the women's lower capabilities the sole reason for the group performing worse?
Based on my own experience (5 years in a mixed gender unit in the Marine Corps) I'd bet the latter, but it would depend on the specific exercise.

>86 posts
>40 posters

Just stop samefagging and go back to /pol/ already. Jesus.

This are so minor that it isn't even worth it.
The differences between women and men are mostly cultural and/or behavior.
For example, women tend to be more social and less competitive. They are mostly protective (motherly instincts) while men can be more aggressive.
But this rules are really often broken, and women that "act like men" and men that "act like women" are really common too.

>people having a discussion is sameposting

I never understood these kinds of posts

You claim that it's sexist to discuss male and female behavior yet you make a sexist claim that all those that talk about it are men.

Have you ever talked to a girl? We complain about other women all the time.

Better at mimicking sounds?

The way I see it, men and women are "unbalanced" in real life, meaning that depending on the values you impose and the situation requirements, one gender is going to be overall "worse" than the other.
If reproduction in your RPG system had some sort of tangible advantage to the players in the long run, women might be more balanced.
RPGs have to be fun, and if women are worse in too many areas then men, and vice versa, it can become unfun. Depends on the group, though.

Women tend to avoid behavior perceived as reckless. It could be cultural, but it is likely biological for men to be more optimistic, or at least more willing, to take risks compared to women.

Magic is op in some games, so maybe that is why they were complaining. Then again many of those people would view women as strictly worse than men, so it may not be justified anyways.

>Better at mimicking sounds?
Watched it on a documentary, and I've seen enough anecdotal evidence to think there might be something to it. Ask some males you know to mimic a handgun going off and ask some females. I'd be willing to bet the former make a close approximation of a firearm going off and the latter say pow or bang.

An RPG that deals with and focuses on this sort of thing that might be interesting to look at is Saga of the Icelanders. A lot of the push and pull conflict comes from the fact that the PCs are playing out the roles of viking settlers on Iceland and how they deal with the roles and expectations society places on them, based on their gender, age, and sex. I had fun last time I played with it.

But is that because men are exposed to and expected to be at least semi-interested in guns and war and women generally aren't?

Basically nurture v. nature again.

>Women tend to avoid behavior perceived as reckless. It could be cultural, but it is likely biological for men to be more optimistic, or at least more willing, to take risks compared to women.
There's been some research to support that, that testoerone increasing risk/benefit behavior.

Give it any sound, I'd be willing to be the results would be the same. Women describe sounds, men try to recreate them.

Are most voice actors female too?

A woman voices Bart Simpson, for instance. Timmy Turner's VA was a chick too.

>/pol/cucks getting triggered
>tumblrites getting triggered
This is the best kind of thread.

I thought it had more to do with most voice acting being for cartoons, which usually have higher voiced characters.