Males get +1 str and -1 cha

I never understood why male and females in a setting need to be balance when men and women in the real world are not balanced.

If you allow disabilities in your game why not just treat being a woman as a disability. Its not like you get extra stats because you want to roleplay as a disabled person so why do you get extra stats for roleplaying as a woman?

Play games where this is the way it works then? If you and your group like it, then go for it champ. What's stopping you? Other people having different fun?

We are focusing on roleplaying and storytelling. We're attempting to make characters more psychologically realistic (and perhaps thus more heroic) by constraining them the way nature constrains them
You're totally right about drow; there's no reason to limit our modifications to humans

>Its not like you get extra stats because you want to roleplay as a disabled person
That's more or less exactly how point buy works, though. By being absolutely abysmal in a few areas, you get to excel in others.

hahaha rage, rage against the dying of the light

>Women at physically weaker
>charisma in D&D also represents inner power and who
>women seen be the sorcerers because they at pretty
>disallow females to have strength score

Stop posting from your fucking phone.

>disallow females to have strength score >13

Pic related. Saged.

Other than memes and trolling, you guys aren't serious about this -3 STR shit?

It's an easy handwave. The specific characters involved in the plot are simply strong as or stronger than most men. Why is it an issue?

and the reverse should be true too

Because the differences that exist between women and men, while they DO exist, are less than the weight of a +1 or -1 to an ability score.

The way we did it was male human PCs got a +1 to either Strength or Con (player's choice) and female humans got +1 to either Dex or Charisma.

it's probably half and half.

The old saying goes 'when a bunch of people pretending to be idiots gather, it's not long before real idiots think they're in good company'.

Yeah, and how long before someone sees 's "lol, women can't have more than a +1 strength mod" while males have no such limits and decide 'nah, fuck that'.

There is also this to consider.

Humans in DnD settings tend to be made by fucking Gods, not natural evolution. Countless more races were made by divinity or even mages than natural processes, so if you were a god, would you seriously want to gimp 50% of your population?

Why cant i post from my phone? You the internet police? And the top 10 percent of women are as strong as the bottom 10 percent of men, so a cap at Str 13 is actually very generous.

Maybe you're right that it's half and half, but it shouldn't be an issue. Anytime someone questions a character's ability based on their gender, I just assume that the handwave is "well this specific person just is that good".

Even if we're talking real humans. The strength difference between males and females is highly exaggerated, while there are differences it's only really notable at the highest levels of athleticism. A female warrior will be so much stronger than a male thief it's not even comparable. So that difference between a female and male warrior isn't worth the +1

Gender is a cosmetic choice (unless you always roll a woman so you can have a chance at seducing the villian or some shit), there's no good reason to change it. While you're going after cosmetics, why not add resistance against priestly spells to characters with red hair or give health penalties to large characters due to extra strain on their cardiovascular system?

fair point. That said:

Hey, I'm sorry, but what about my magical realm amazonian society? They're human.

But the women all developed into huge, muscle girls while men atrophied into weak, eternal shota boytoys?

Don't forget, if you give males +1 and females -1, the difference is actually a spread of 2. So it's even stupider!

Because "the standard" for game mechanics is decided by player acceptance instead of accuracy in mirroring reality.

So the issue is just how much weaker women are then men.

Women's +95kg weight lifting world record is 117kg for a snatch where the men's +105kg world record was 216kg. Nearly 100kg more. In fact the lowest weight class men can compete in, the 56kg, has a record of 138. So a man half her size can snatch 21kg more than the strongest women in the world.

There is just no comparison, especially when people also want to play women who are also petite and beautiful.

>The old saying goes 'when a bunch of people pretending to be idiots gather, it's not long before real idiots think they're in good company'.
You have to be an idiot (or incredibly naive) not to notice physical and psychological sexual dimorphism
>Yeah, and how long before someone sees 's "lol, women can't have more than a +1 strength mod" while males have no such limits and decide 'nah, fuck that'.
user is also naive. I was the one who suggested that women get Persuade, Bluff and Diplomacy buffs against heterosexual males, and Intimidate buffs against beta males such as wizards and gnomes

But an ugly women is less charismatic than an ugly man ?

Because it's pointless if you're using point buy and you should be using point buy.

>117kg
So, a Strength score of 19?

Your magical realm is your business, my friend. People can be anything they want there (and indeed, many people who defending musclegirl warrior women tropes would indeed love to inhabit it). What we're talking about here is injecting more human reality into mainstream fantasy, to raise the stakes of encounters with dragons and undead hordes even further

>physiologically realistic
>D&D

>The strength difference between males and females is highly exaggerated, while there are differences it's only really notable at the highest levels of athleticism

On the contrary, it's often under appreciated. Top level female athletes compete on the level of (and have comparable world records) amateur ~14 year old boys and regularly get trounced by them.

In areas where sexual dimorphism is the highest like grip strength (very important in melee combat) professional female athletes barely reach the level of the average untrained male.

Except you so obviously made those numbers up it's hilarious. A quick glance at Olympic records show 115kg was done at 60kg. Which is almost equal to the men's side.
Official weight lifting organization probably has higher

Pretending to be retarded just means you are acting like a retard.

This should be reflected in mechanics as well

>falling for bait this obvious
He's not even trying guys.

Except for when they're on testosterone, then they compete with most non-outlier men.

In a world where a dude can rip a hole in space and time by waving his hands, you don't think a female can use magic to make herself as strong as any male?

it's a game with elves and goblins. There are literally a billion in-lore ways to make it believable that a player character happens to be an outlier female who's as strong as any male the players meet.

Because it has been worked out that-4 strength is pretty much the difference between top mle and female athletes in their lift/drag/whatever.

Look up the "Women are Wonderful" effect. Women are significantly more likely to be trusted than men, even with other women.

Because literally why? If a GM wants to implement those rules there's nothing to stop them, and 90% of GMs won't want to implement that rule or will outright ignore it.

Besides, 3.Path's rules are fundamentally unrealistic, so why is that such a big deal?

>beta males this desperate to preserve their masculinity
Don't worry, just because Nancy kicked your ass on the playground doesn't mean you're not a real man.

This seems to be the only counterargument to this question that I've ever encountered. Why? It's not good enough.
Human history teems with heroes. Heroism is psychologically realistic, it isn't constrained to DnD and its true nature can be reflected in DnD. Alexander the Great was a real person, as were Audie Murphy, Horatius Cocles, Ernst Junger, et al ad nauseam. There have even been female heroes; not just agent provocateurs, but actual heroes, from the Maiden of France to French resistance fighters, from Artemisia to Soviet snipers. All of them existed despite the physical and psychological constraints (contours?) of reality and the realism that constrained them made their stories all the more meaningful, both men and women
There's no reason human nature has to be jettisoned even in fantastic worlds of fiction

Top tier female weightlifters weigh well over 100kg (Zhou Lulu competes at 140kg...) yet their records are below those of the under 69kg male class...

Records show an almost equivalent lift for their sizes. Males having a small advantage. The difference is men also tend to compete at a higher weight class. Women go from 40-70 while men compete at 60-100 give or take.
Try looking up stats before opening your mouth. But I guess all those dicks lodged it in a permanently open position

I think we all know that IRL the more beta a man is, the more likely he is to say that there are no significant physical and psychological differences between men and women. This will be obvious to anyone who isn't a complete shutin

>Records show an almost equivalent lift for their sizes

No you fucking drooling retard. Zhou Lulu who holds the female Olympic weightlifting world record lifts less than men literally half her size.

Zhou lulu did a snatch of 328kg. What male half her size did anything remotely close to that?
The 75+ on Wikipedia is her weightclass, not her record.

You know, I'm not gonna argue that there's a difference in real life between men and women. Because there is.

The real question is: would these changes honestly enhance your enjoyment of tabletop RPGs?

Especially when you can better represent a character's deficiencies through point-buy/stat distribution and growth?

>snatch of 328kg
Confirmed for not knowing the first thing about what you're talking about.

>What male half her size did anything remotely close to that?
The male world record in the 69kg class (where everyone is half her size or less) is 357 kg m8...

>The 75+ on Wikipedia is her weightclass, not her record.
And her actual weight is 140kg.

All of the following assumes 5e.

>Tell me why this is not the standard

Because -1 bonuses are essentially meaningless in a game where 10 and 11 are mechanically identical stats, while a +1 bonus is essentially the same as a +2 bonus in a game where every even-numbered increase nets you a positive mechanical effect.

Consider:

15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8

I put the +1 in 15 and I put the -1 in 13, giving me:

16, 14, 12, 12, 10, 8

The +1 turned my 15 into a 16, so I got something out of it. My 13 became a 12...which is mechanically identical to a 13. So there's no impact.

Now, you might argue that it has an impact because it still means women are slightly worse than men in fighty classes...and you're an idiot for thinking that because it means you've forgotten to take racial traits into account.

Consider the following fighter without race:

Str 15, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 8

Now make it a male human 9standard) using OP's rules:

Str 17, Dex 13, Con 15, Int 11, Wis 14, Cha 8

And female human (standard):

Str 16, Dex 13, Con 15, Int 11, Wis 14, Cha 9

Once again, mechanically the two are essentially the same. The male has a slightly higher carrying capacity (255 lbs. verses 250 lbs.), but both are going to need to use the same number of ASI's to get their Strength scores to 20.

(Variant human doesn't change anything since the two +1s would go into Strength and Constitution anyway and thus result in broadly the same effect.)

>The male has a slightly higher carrying capacity (255 lbs. verses 250 lbs.)

*whoops, should have been 255 lbs. verses 240 lbs. Mea culpa.

It offends people. Whether it's realistic or interesting is irrelevant. If you're running a business, you don't want to offend potential customers. That's why they don't do that stuff.

That's equally unrealistic. I know plenty of guys that couldn't overpower an average woman. I know plenty of women with abysmal dexterity and zero charisma. Just stat people as individuals.

Yeah it's almost as if the genders evolved to be good at different things or something.

>Tell me why this is not the standard
D&D takes place in an alternate universe where women aren't useless vaginas on stilts.

Need more "y no -10 lifespan for men" troll threads. It's more realistic after all.

Should a group decide to add rules for sexual dimorphism to their 3.PF/derivative D20 game, I recommend the following; it being something of my own creation.

Simple, Fantastic:
Stats cap at 20. Alter this number for games that have higher or lower 'power levels'.
Female Humans - STR and CON caps at 18 (-2). At level 10, choose a skill. Gain a +2 bonus to that skill when using your INT, WIS or CHA modifier.

Complex, Fantastic:
Female Humans - STR and CON cap at 18(-2). At level 10, choose two skills. Gain a +2 bonus to those skills when using your INT, WIS or CHA modifier. Once per Adventure (or week or 5 long rests or some significant amount of time), you may choose to roll two D20s when making a CHA skill check, taking your choice.

Simple, 'Realistic':
Female Humans - STR, CON and DEX cap at 16 (-4). At level 13, choose a skill. Gain a +2 bonus to that skill when using your INT, WIS or CHA modifier.

Complex, 'Realistic':
Female Humans - STR, CON and DEX cap at 16 (-4). At level 13, choose two skills. Gain a +2 bonus to those skills when using your INT, WIS or CHA modifier. Once per Adventure (or week or 5 long rests or some significant amount of time), you may choose to roll two D20s when making a CHA skill check, taking your choice.

These values, even the 'realistic' ones, are not 1:1 with real life. Even the most gritty and grimdark of settings in 3.x systems (or any progeny thereof) still have PCs as being exceptional specimens.

>would you seriously want to gimp 50% of your population
If it meant maintaining a social order that benefits me, yes

Alteration:
The line "Stats cap at 20. Alter this number for games that have higher or lower 'power levels'." should come before the line "Simple, Fantastic:", as a stat cap is meant to be implied as applying to every line below it.

This guy gets it. Stat caps are better for enforcing realism, bonuses and penalties exist to tweak game balance.

I don't know which is worse:

The fact that this thread appeared in the catalog yet again prompting people to reply as expected, or the fact that there are people that will argue seriously about how the mechanics of a tabletop game about skeleton wizards and the multiverse don't accurately reflect reality.

>it's a game with elves and goblins.
What the fuck do completely realistic other hominids with their own evolutionary history have to do with problems concerning realism?

We compare heroes to heroes, the actual statistical distributions don't matter.
Strong women are rarer than strong men, but pcs and important npcs are exceptional anyway.

So you are saying that every female should start on steroids? Why not make a different class altogether then. I never played DnD so you may as well disregard my opinion, but shouldn't every class have its own strengths and weaknesses? If there are other types of females (elves, orcs etc) that have better stats than the humans why not just switch class instead of excessively buffing up the ones with lower strength.

>skeleton wizards and the multiverse don't accurately reflect reality.
But.. we're not talking about skeleton wizards. I don't get this argument, seriously. No one is arguing that in-universe material being unrealistic is bad, we're talking about the fact that a setting that has NORMAL (read: regular humans, not skeleton wizards) don't address the difference between males. There's nothing to indicate that for example in DnD the humans are somehow biologically different.

worst girl

I don't think that would actually offend any men though

Because then anyone who wanted to make a charismatic character would gravitate towards making them female, and anyone who wanted to make a strong character would gravitate towards making them male. Disregarding "lol -4 strength" memes, it would just unnecessarily pigeonhole character archetypes by making players have to choose between the best possible numbers and the character they actually want to play.

But here we get to the core issue with this, the only difference between males an females (aside from sex) that is entirely biological is that males are stronger and bigger. Almost any other difference is too nuanced and (whether it "favors" men or women) can be argued to be social or at least not entirely biological. Much like this. Not that I disagree with you really, it would be a nice stat if it affected the game at all.

This

This more importantly

Anything perceived as remotely exclusionary is treated like the plague by most businesses these days.

because women aren't charismatic and men are. women should get -1 str, -1 con and a lower maximum int by 2 points and instead get the 'racial' ability to bear children.

This literally sounds like something a bitter guy would say. Why the fucking stat penalty for intelligence? There are women scientists like Marie Curie

>At level 13, choose a skill. Gain a +2 bonus to that skill when using your INT, WIS or CHA modifier.
nah

>OP gets -2 hetero +2 autism and -17 years starting age

Yes I'm saying OP is a gay autistic baby.

>Marie Curie
leeched off her husbands work, literally the worst possible example for a female scientist.
Stat cap in place because the IQ bellcurve is a lot narrower for females than for males.
Or, to put it simply: For every ten male retards and geniuses, there are 1 female retard and genius. But stats are low-capped at 8 anyway so only the maximum needs adjustment.

I haven't played D&D or PF in forever. Do they even still make you choose a gender or sex? Seems like something they'd drop from the character sheet.

Because you're being a huge faggot.
Seriously, we all want this and agree with it, but when we ask where it is all they'll say is to blame you because you're being a huge faggot.

So this is really all on you.

Realistically, there are differences between men and women ON AVERAGE.

However, a player character is an exceptional person by design. It's only natural that their stats should be pretty fucking out of whack from the norm, the only thing that matters is the literal maximum capability inherent in the race itself (IE, being able to see in the dark and shit.).

The difference between genders can be handled by the GM quietly in the background for the NPCs without the players noticing a single fucking thing.

>This literally sounds like something a bitter guy would say
Fuck off cunt

Strength is capped differently and so is Int. Read the fucking thread.
Con is probably capped as well but I'm too lazy to compare marathon records right now.

In the end we'll probably arrive at something like
female:
-4 max STR
-4 max CON
-2 max INT

You just seem really hateful

>realistic = hateful
>more shitty non-arguments
top kek

I have no idea where you got the idea for a Charisma bonus. If you REALLY want gendered stat modifiers, I've seen arguments for women to get a bonus to dexterity, constitution, or wisdom, while men would get a bonus to the others.

It's so boys and girls can sit at the same table and play the same game on the same terms.

From a game design perspective, that just trumped realism. I can get behind that.

But if this minor portion of realism gets your dick ragingly hard, just houserule it in. It shouldn't affect your group if you don't have any women in there, right?

Playing the devil's advocate here: Aren't, say, Olympic athletes also exceptional by design? Then why don't women compete with men? The gap between genders is largest at the highest levels -- almost as if there's a different inherent maximum capacity for men and women.

IQ measurements are generally regarded as bullshit, or at the very least subjective.

They're simply a model for a type of intelligence, but taking them as a end all, be all measure of intelligence is pointless.

It's like deciding that Lewis Structures are the end all of Chemistry.

>get the 'racial' ability to bear children.
Do characters need crunchy abilities for things that don't even come up in 99% of all adventures?

There's a shitload of arbitrary rules governing events such as the Olympics.

Are you seriously suggesting that the only thing keeping women from competing in athletics at the same level as men is arbitrary rules?

...

I'd say metalworking comes up a lot more than pregnancy. Nearly every fantasy game I have been in has had a PC that made and maintained our equipment.

Huh, does that mean your groups execute all the women you rape?

I think male players should get 20% more starting funds in Monopoly, to represent the gender wage gap.

At the same time, female players should get to pick from a ragingly unbalanced Community Chest deck, representing how society at large coddles women.

Writing sexually dimorphic stats for every race would be dumb. Not every race would have male/females different in the same way.

Does yours let them tag along long enough for a pregnancy to become apparent?

I'm saying it's a factor. The other is that very few Olympians can be regarded as pure examples of physicality, drug use and other artificial methods, legal or otherwise are common to the point of being the norm, which can absolutely skew the data.

There's also issues of the fact that while the Olympics certainly attract a high level of athlete, it's hardly the be all, end all for measurement of gender capabilities. There can certainly exist a woman who's on an equal ground as a man that has simply never devoted her life to physical activity that would showcase this fact.