D&D may be a fantasy game, but some of the mechanics are obviously based in reality (ie...

>D&D
>I want realism
Fuck off.

Because nobody gives a shit and this is a shipping thread.

>racial disadvantages and advantagesa are not a thing
>it's all only disadvantages
There's a slight difference between +2 to one state and +2,+2,-2 to a sets of stats and outright making half the population of one race 50% weaker than the average stat score, moron.

Giving -4 penalty to females is stupid because it adds nothing to the game and not enjoyable but your reasoning is flawed because RPGs are full of disadvantages based on your character.

>small races can't handle large weapons
>ALL of the drows get disadvantages under sunlight
>certain races can't into magic

You just sound like a whining baby that cries unfun whenever he is told that his dwarf can't learn magic because of negative int modifier.

>Seeing as we now have empirical proof of the strength difference between genders
We've known this forever
>why hasn't this been implemented?
Because it doesn't matter in this case. The power fantasy of RPGs like D&D, in which your character is assumed to be above average, does not benefit from giving the players real world drawbacks to genders. So it begs the question, why is it that you want this?

Well, why haven't you done it?

Because those race options always have a bonus to weigh out the negative, moron. This is just an extra negative for nothing.

Except this is D&D where there are no races that cannot use magic, disadvantages in sunlight can be mitigated with sunglasses that are commonly available, and small races can handle large weapons with a few feats, just like medium ones can use huge weapons with a few feats.

There's a pretty big difference between choosing the issues a race has, and then receiving a -4 penalty on top of all the others because the GM arbitrarily decided this one fact needs to be realistic in a game with flying electricity breathing dragons and carnivorous mobile plants and mushrooms that hunt you down and rot you to death, so half the population of an entire race is now unplayable since -5 penalties inflict massive penalties. Hell, if that was the case, it would be impossible for evolution to allow a race of peopel with -5 or -4 to the damage inflicting stat to survive in the first place. If anything D&D is more realistic since gender inequality is a weakness that would have been removed by the deadly nature of the universe it's set in.

Sage and hide

To start fights on nu/tg/pol/ of course, dumbass.

>why hasn't this been implemented?
Because there's no need of a rule about it, you are just unimaginative.

Instead of applying mofifiers just imply that the stat has already applyied such modifiers and, instead of complain about the fact that a woman can't have 18 str, try on imagine how would look/work a woman with 18 str: maybe she is a giantess, her strenght has origins of innatural means, she is from a bloodline of an ancient superstrong breed of mankind, etc...

True or not, things like this make no sense from a mechanical standpoint. Why would anyone choose a woman PC, other than waifu-faggots? Those retards would make a woman PC even if ALL their ability scores started at fucking zero.

In terms of games and gameplay, I think it's more than fine to skimp on the reality aspect here. And yes, I know this is a bait thread, it's still an interesting subject.

Yes, because there are no women who play roleplaying games, ever, anywhere.

It's a stupid subject that's been argued into the ground.

>penalize a player with a huge disadvantage by greatly exaggerating a real life disparity between the genders
if a big ass orc only gets 2 points over a human, i can live with equally statted genders

not to mention, from a gameplay perspectives, you are railroading people by chopping off options, a big no-no in design

I don't think women would choose to play as a woman if it incurred such hefty penalties.

>Is this a copypasta or new attempt at the -4 STR meme?
It really isn't. Advantages/disadvantages varying based on race/gender/etc are almost ubiquitous in RPGs, tabletop or otherwise.

>Waiting for pictures of muscle women.
Me too bud

Except maximum strength is different too. Look at max bench press, etc, records for men vs women. They have between 20-50% lower maxes, with respect to body mass.

Crying about "Incels" is the mark of a true redditor.
Get the fuck off Veeky Forums.

Do that and watch as no one will play with you.
But that's in the hypothetical situation where you would actually try to run a game, which you never have.

That's kind of the point.

And you know all about being a redditor.

Was also my point here

TSR's got you covered, broski.

>Why would anyone choose a woman PC, other than waifu-faggots?
why is realistic outcome (almost no women are warriors) bad?
>if a big ass orc only gets 2 points over a human, i can live with equally statted genders
depends on orcs, in different fantasy setting they are big or bigger
also, compared to women, men can be described as "big ass"

-4 STR is beyond reasonable for any sort of difference between the two genders

6 STR women would lead to them being roughly as good as a crippled man in a fight, incapable of lifting a wooden table
amd while men are stronger than women on average, the difference isnt so big that you will warrant making women a completely unplayable option

got it right, no one is stopping you from making a boys only club, but you wouldnt get many players

I wasn't the one invoking the incel-boogeyman and pointing towards reddit.
You were.
You even know that there apparently is about your newest enemy to SocJus, so your NO U-Deflection looks sad and pathetic.

Also your next post will be damage control.

Feels like the difference between men and women should not be greater than the difference between humans and halflings.

But anyway get on with this . Have you forgotten the face of your father Veeky Forums? Have you forgotten your memes?

>"why would anyone chose a female Pc"
Because they might be a female player? I think it's more how your phrasing works than any intentional confusion.

i never gave exact numbers, it literally depends on the system
In GURPS it probably should be -2
>amd while men are stronger than women on average, the difference isnt so big that you will warrant making women a completely unplayable option
>warrant making women warriors a almost unplayable option
fixed that for you

Different user sir fagalot and you sound butthurt that someone pointed out you seem to know what someone from reddit looks like.

Welcome to nu/tg/pol/.

That sounds too stupid to use without irony, come up with a better name.

>now have
We've known this since before we were called "humans".

At my table we do have houserules for female characters and everyone who plays (including the 1 girl) is okay with it. We give female characters:
>-4 Str, -2 Dex, -2 Con, -4 Wis, -4 Cha for the purposes of Diplomacy and Intimidation checks and +4 Cha for the purposes of other Cha checks
>Cannot be of Lawful Good, Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral alignment
>Cannot be Fighters, Clerics, Paladins, Wizards or Monks
>1/2 starting wealth and 1/2 of a share of party treasure rather than a full share
>Quite a lot of restriction in backgrounds, but this is too much to actually type out

Ayup, thats damage control. Called it.

...

Or you if you really need to do a STR thingy just make a strength cap as that is closer to real life and does not make women warriors unplayable.

it'd be weird
everyone would run male characters by default; it's completely reasonable a character is male, provides a BIG mechanical advantage and it'd make sense most advanturers are male ina world with this in place. female chars would be edgy and/or hypersexual, but more than usual i mean
these are adventurers and heroes; not just average people. adventurewomen are stronger than normal women. if they wern't they'd be dead and/or sex slaves.
2d6 is too punishing, a 2d6+1d3 would be fairer, making females viable.

So, anybody got the screenshot of Gary posting about how much he hates egalitarianism/feminism?

where are my musclewomen Veeky Forums?

I was promised rock hard abs and tighs that could cruch my head like a melon. I will not be denied.

>no Int penalty
Spotted the SJW.

Came into this thread for this, was disappointed.

You lazy fucks.

>Because as a PC, you're supposed to be exceptional. So it doesn't matter if the average muscle mass for a woman is lower, because a female PC isn't average.
This is the correct answer.

>Look at max bench press, etc, records for men vs women.
Please cite me the statistics of the maximum bench press records of real life exceptional PC fantasy adventurers of both genders.
I'll wait.

Yes, this is why I am here. Thank you, elegan/tg/entlemen.

Women can reach the same muscle mass over time. But yes, if things were realistic there should be a difference between genders, but it would be more fitting to ADD strength to men rather than take it from women, and giving women a bonus such as dexterity or charisma.

>Women can reach the same muscle mass over time
They literally cant though.

>Women can reach the same muscle mass over time.
No, you are objectively wrong.

OP

Why is Veeky Forums so misogynist?

If you prefer to rule that female characters have lower natural strength than males then do so. Is the only thing stopping you some arbitrary text in a book? If not, why does it bother you so much that other people may not play a game of imagination the way you believe they should?

Every woman in the adventuring party has either a divine or magical blessing to give her strength equal to men, learned special anime fighting styles that made her just as good as men without relying on strength, or is not a fighting class/has low strength.

Your welcome.

Why do Gods or magical powers favour women?

youtube.com/results?search_query=crushing a melon with her thighs

>Please cite me the statistics of the maximum bench press records of real life exceptional PC fantasy adventurers of both genders.
>I'll wait.
If you knew how to read, you'd have noticed in the OP that I said that its a mechanic based on real life, and since there are already similar mechanics in game, its a valid point.

I'm sorry you have a muscle fetish, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Have fun with your jerk off material though bud :^)

Honestly, the answer is pretty simple. It'd be boring as shit for a player that'd like to play a woman who takes to fighting to get penalized on top of whatever penalties he already chose. If you were to go with that, you'd need to give them a bonus to something else entirely, but that'd dissuade Veeky Forums in many different manners (for example, a Charisma bonus for being a woman may suddenly lead to a surge in women becoming bards or warlocks or sorcerers, or its alternative and even more absurd answer - Charisma penalty for men). It adds no part of fun to anyone involved, and it'd actively penalize players that'd like to play women, or, hell, at a point even penalize everyone just in general for no reason other than "lol realism". There are fun penalties - ones you can work around, or ones that are a part of your character's personality. Comparatively, this would fall into "unfun" penalty tier. Of course, I'm leering into badwrongfun territory, but basically the reason is that it hinders players for no reason.

>Women can reach the same muscle mass over time.
>They literally cant though.
>No, you are objectively wrong.
Cite me the statistics regarding comparative gains of men and women of comparable starting size and condition,
Then realize it's pointless because, even if it were true and the average peasant npc woman has lower strength, they're stronger male counterpart is still just a level one commoner.

You are cancer, fuck off please.

>Cite me the statistics regarding comparative gains of men and women of comparable starting size and condition
D-Did you just ask for a basic biology lesson senpai?

>penalize women on strenght abd constitution
>penalize men on charisma and wisdom (or intelligence)
Now everyone should be happy

Saying women have the same physical strength as men is anti-science and sexist to women. Real women are physically weaker than men. They are at risk of being raped or kidnapped by the physically stronger men. Not recognizing this is sexist and undermines the real risks women face.

Stop being sexist. Women are more physically vulnerable.

If you knew how to read, you'd have noticed in the post you're responding to pointed out that the study in the OP pic didn't observe PCs.

>I said that its a mechanic based on real life, and since there are already similar mechanics in game, its a valid point.
That is utter shit logic.
A survey of people's skill at using a sword, not to mention wizardry, might yeild statistic that are 100% based on real life but have no relevance to a PC.

>I'm sorry you have a muscle fetish
I actually don't, I prefer quite the opposite, not that I expect to be believed.
I just appreciate the challenge of finding decent images that aren't retarded.
It's proving difficult.

Anyway, guys, less arguing, more
>-4 STR

>D-Did you just ask for a basic biology lesson senpai?
No, I asked for a citation of examples of a man and a woman of the same build both gaining muscle mass over time.

A six foot tall woman is going to be able to easily build more muscle mass that Verne Troyer, a man.

Stuff i have is pretty subdued as far as muscle goes.

Testosterone, it's got what bodybuilders crave.

Even if women are, a woman isn't necessarily.
PCs are, by definition, individuals.

>-4 str
lmao

...

That is a statement of a hormone that facilitates said muscle growth, not a citation refuting the idea that a comparable man and woman can reach the same muscle mass over time.
I can't even imagine how you could confuse the two.
Perhaps you're being distracted by the images and I should stop posting them.

...

there definitely isn't that many gays in real life.

Do you really not know that women are physically weaker then men? Why are you so sexist?
It is dangerous for women to try and lift weights the same as men. Here are some squat guidelines for example: strengthlevel.com/strength-standards/squat/lb

I think he's trying to make some weird creationist argument that if all things equal if they did the exact same exercises they would gain the same muscle mass.

...

Which isn't even true. Women's ligaments have a smaller attachment area to bone because women have more slender bones. Yes, even controlling for height with a man.

A 5'8" 160lb man has stronger muscles, stronger ligaments and stronger tendons than a 5'8" 160lb women.

Makes sense.
On the flipside, women were traditionally the keepers of witchcraft and the "wise arts" and were oracles in ancient times. Therefore, I propose only women can be spellcasters.

>faggot who has never heard of Moses, Merlin, or Faust.

cat=goat=cow>rabbit=dog>Hitler>horse

Use your words.

This is exactly why women are more flexible than men who aren't mutants (i.e. double jointed).

>only women can be spellcasters
retarded
having slightly different magic systems for both sexes can be something interesting tho

Nah.
Everything on this topic was said before me, hundreds of times in hundreds of threads. I'm just here to provide musclegirls.

Right. In gymnastics there is a reason the men often do rings or other strength based events. The women are more flexible and their low body weight allows them excel at tumbling.

t.soyboy

>Do you really not know that women are physically weaker then men?
No, I just know that just because people who brush their teeth live longer, that doesn't necessarily mean that them brushing their teeth is what makes them live longer.
Correlation is not truth.

>Women's ligaments have a smaller attachment area to bone because women have more slender bones. Yes, even controlling for height with a man.
>A 5'8" 160lb man has stronger muscles, stronger ligaments and stronger tendons than a 5'8" 160lb women.
Now this is some nicely cited science.
Rather than "Since women are weaker than men, women are weaker than men because women are weaker than men." nonsense.

Muscle girls are sexist. They insinuate that a women is more powerful if she looks like a man. It is a chauvinistic objectification of women.

for the sake of argument, that was true in Norse mythology. Male spellcasters had to make themselves like women to use magic

God I hope you're memeing

>Bearded Odin looked like a woman.