Should body types and gender actually have an effect on melee and shit?

[Zombra]

Controversy is a factor.

not to myself, tynan, and plenty of customers

Really?  Tynan has gone on record saying he doesn't care about public opinion?  I'm going to need a link to that.

cannibalism and violence is necessary

maybe violence is, but I'm sure cannibalism could be removed from a17 and the game wouldn't unravel. It would suck, having a removed feature, but the game wouldn't stop being fun.

"Being fun" and "being necessary to the core of the game" are two different things.  Cannibalism is a strong theme in survival stories; therefore it makes sense to include in a survival game, even if some find it distasteful.  COULD it be removed?  Of course, but so what?

Also, when you say you aren't directing this at OP, isn't this kind of a lie?

No.

sexist

Ask yourself if the sales lost would really be that significant, the article from RPS probably generated MORE sales... Hell, that game hatred got lots of sales, despite being a mediocre game, because the controversy BOOSTED sales.

Again: if Tynan wants to gain negative attention as a shock jockey, then this strategy would make sense.  From what I've read, this is not what he wants to do so it does not make sense.

skills are mechanics

Try this.

Take 2 pawns, of different body type... give them max 20 in all skills

And tell me what difference there is in mechanics

Seriously, download prepare carefully RIGHT NOW and make 2 colonists 100% identical in skills, traits, but give them different body types, and tell me what the mechanical difference is.

lol.  So in order to disprove that a mechanic functions in vanilla, I have to install a mod that specifically disables it?  Sorry man, you just lost the argument.  The mechanic is meaningful in the vanilla game.

Zombra, it sounds like you're saying that the extremely complicated and nuanced differences between males and females does not need to be modeled in the game, and you believe the game has little to gain from trying.

Correct.  It is not in the scope of the game.  I wouldn't object to it, except:

It sounds like you're further asserting that it would be harmful to try, because it would perpetuate misinformation due to its necessarily limited scope, which would reinforce socially damaging effects. Am I misunderstanding or misrepresenting something here? I'd like to understand the thrust of your argument, if I can.

You're misunderstanding this part.  My objection is not that it might be limited or "not realistic enough".  (I find it really weird how prevalent the assumption is that "more realistic" is always the goal in gaming!)  My point is that adding controversial material to the game will bring it a negative reputation, and should only be done if the material is necessary to fulfill the game's core vision (e.g. cannibalism is distasteful but important to the survival theme).  Since the game's core vision has nothing to do with sexism, nothing is lost by leaving it out, but damage would be done by adding it.

[skullywag]

Just to clear something up body TYPE (Hulk, thin etc) is purely cosmetic, Body SIZE however does have a function in numerous areas. Im not sure which one you guys are referring to or if you are both talking about different ones, but there it is.

[vampiresoap]

Zombra, it sounds like you're saying that the extremely complicated and nuanced differences between males and females does not need to be modeled in the game, and you believe the game has little to gain from trying. It sounds like you're further asserting that it would be harmful to try, because it would perpetuate misinformation due to its necessarily limited scope, which would reinforce socially damaging effects. Am I misunderstanding or misrepresenting something here? I'd like to understand the thrust of your argument, if I can.

Mumble, it sounds like you're asserting that said nuanced differences DO need to be modeled for the game, and their inclusion adds further depth which can generate more and even better dramatic stories from the in-game model. It further sounds like (I think I recall having a similar debate with you in the thread on suicide) you believe art, video games included, should not be limited in their content by what is controversial, but rather should include anything which could further their emotional impact. Do I have the gist of your stance right? If not, would you be willing to clarify? I've already misunderstood a half dozen times in this thread, what's a few more as long as I fix 'em? :p

This is a nice summary for anyone who skipped the majority of the posts. I know I did haha...I can totally get behind Mumble's stance. Also, why do you guys make it seem so controversial? Mount and Blade did it and nobody bats an eye. Male protagonists in that game have +1 Str and +1 agility and Female protagonists have +1 Intelligence and +1 Charisma. The game actually makes sure the player understands how much more difficult it is for females to become a liege lord through conversations with the various lords. (which to be honest, is pretty realistic in a medieval setting). In Fallout New Vegas, the Legion looks down on you if you are female and will not allow you to fight in the arena. From my point of view, it actually adds a lot to the game when the game acknowledges your gender instead of just turning a blind eye.

PS: I don't know why some of you brought up the gender gap or the rape issue (again, too long did not read =D ) But seriously please stay on topic and please make your posts more concise and to the point lol...

[mumblemumble]

tynan doesn't care about public opinion

Tynan has mentioned something along the lines of he doesn't want discussions, ideas, or game experience to be limited by those who do not want certain things...he got backlash with this with gay people, drugs, and other things... but still did them.

and public opinion isn't always right.

cannibalism is part of survival

Don't starve, dayz, minecraft, dust, hurtworld.. ...these are all survival games to some extent, none of them have cannibalism IIRC. and this is a very small list too.

I would argue cannibalism isn't strictly necessary for survival...its part of it, just like rape is part of a simulation of humanity, but is not absolutely essential...but I agree, its a nice part to make it feel complete.

no

I would like an explanation on what you meant by "this" then, in the post I was referencing then...Because im legit confused now on what you mean, and I really don't want to misinterpret people if I can help it.

shock jockey

First off, one can add that and not intend to be a shock jockey, and second, this is kind of a dismissal of the debate. I'm sure tynan didn't add drugs, overdosing, or cannibalism for shock value, so why would it apply to rape?...oh right, because rape is "more controversial". I forgot, sorry... Seriously, I would like to not resort to bringing that up, but...thats been a majority of your argument behind it. Its hard to not bring that up, when its literally been your argument.

mod disables it

It doesn't disable it. It proves my point that body type ALONE is 100% aesthetic, JUST as skullywag mentioned. The difference between a hunk of a man, a plank, a chubby dude, is absolutely nothing mechanically. They all function 100% the same. Absolutely nothing, from walk speed, hitbox size in combat, health issues, or task efficiency is effected AT ALL by body type alone.

If body type WAS a functioning mechanic, then 2 pawns, 100% identical BESIDES one being chubby, and one being a beefcake, the 2 would not perform identically.  This is my point, because the mod is a way to scientifically test it, removing all other variables.

(e.g. cannibalism is distasteful but important to the survival theme).  Since the game's core vision has nothing to do with sexism, nothing is lost by leaving it out, but damage would be done by adding it.

cannibalism wasn't "important" to the game till it was added fyi...this is a very important factor with "in development games", because everyone has their own "vision" of the end product.

Your vision is not mine, mine is not vampiresoaps, vampiresoaps is not tynans, ect...

We must be aware of this, otherwise we can get stuck in THIS kind of argument, where you say "THIS ISNT RIMWORLD!" which might be the case now, but who knows, it could be added...I didnt expect drugs would be added, but low and behold, they were.  Rather than say rimworld "isnt xyz" off your own "vision" of rimworld a25 for instance (or b5?) consider what it would add, and what it would take away.

Food for thought, but thyme made a FAR better argument against this than you have in terms of objective ideas. Yes, these ideas ARE a small proportion of work put in / cool stuff gotten out, and hes very valid in that...but he didn't simply say "it doesn't fit rimworld, a game which is not complete, and I don''t know the future of".  Thyme made an actual argument for why it might not be added in the foreseeable future...you provided tons of conjecture for much of this. You didn't even list off a forseeable chain of events which would be negative, you simply titled it as "sexist" and "controversial".

And vampire makes a good point, other series have added this and NOT been crucified as you seem to fear. Its borderline fear mongering, because games that do this don't face such immense hate that you think, nor does it destroy sales how you predict it will.

I love rimworld as much as you, but you insisting the game would get banned is practically fear-mongering, a word I normally despise using, or hearing.

And yeah, sorry for off topic stuff...its just...difficult for people to bring up various things which are untrue, and not want to take a minute to explain why they are wrong. 

Ill try working on it, though.

By the way, isn't body size the same for all adult humans? I know teens have lower stats, but for those over 18(?) its all the same isn't it?

[Headshotkill]

I haven't read everything in this thread but it seems to be boiling down to wether or not to ad percieved 'controversial' matter.
To which my opinion is, if it enhances and or deepens the game, sure.

It's important in my eyes to reduce hardcoded numbers, meaning someone with a higher melee skill shouldn't always win.
Bring in other factors, wounds, overall health status, body type,...

A good middle ground to me seems to ad body types:
Brute, lean, skinny, ...

Both men and women can have these body types, but men have a higher chance getting the stronger more brute types, while women the frailer, lean types. Both would have their (dis)advantages.


On the broader almost off-topic discussion about controversy and some nature/nurture stuff I read here and there.
I think today in general both social and politics are being tormented by PC-culture, it's disassembling the cornerstones of western liberal values. One of the most if not THE mostimportant interaction is the discussion.

We're too scared to delve into any topic that might even SCRATCH the surface of the politically incorrect, I've seen a post in this thread asking why this thread even exists, it only brings controversy and flamewars, not? WRONG!

By boycotting any attempt of discussing controversial topics, which most of the time aren't even THAT controversial, instead of the two sides finding even ground and understanding each other we're becoming more and more isolated.

The way the regressive left deems any critisism of BLM racist, creates true racists
The way the regressive left deems any critisism of uncontrolled migration into Europe fascist, creates true fascists.
The way here, we deem someone sexist, should he explore the topic of sexual dimorphism will create true sexism.

Let us have true discussions with mutual respect and not fear diving into the dark when it comes to controversial topics. Those who scream triggered and retreat to attacking the speaker instead of forming a counter argument will in the end, make themselfs look stupid.

[iota_x]

I hate to even engage in what I fear is a 'clickbait' response trying to lure "SJW's" like me into flame war.

I'll try to just make my point, without getting all "political."

I studied genetics in University ten years ago, and while it's not my field, and I'm no genetic scentist, there is some data from emperyical studies into genetic diversity between men and women which is relevant.

Arguement: Tynan is correct (scentifically) for making males and females essentially equal in combat.

Defense: The idea that men are stronger than women is largely cultural. While it may be true that on average a man is more likely to be "stronger" than a woman, it says nothing about whether "this" man is stronger than "that" woman.

Our cultural practices, such as how boys and girls are educated at a young age, and wht activities they are encouraged or allowed to participate in, affect their future "strength" and "skill."


There are glitterworlds, tribals planets, colonies of alk types. Who is to say that some planets haven't switched gender roles through the millenia? My piint is that it is not an accurate to believe that men are stronger than women. Any evidence towards such a conclusion is either about culture and nurture, and not genesand nature. Remember, 22 out of 23 pairs of chromosomes all contain copies of the same alleles, regarless of you gender. The genes which are coded on the X and Y chromosomes are much less relevant to potential diversity among men and women tham the genes we alk have in common.

Bottom line, the effect of "gender" (which isn't as black and white as many believe it is - there are many people for a test for gender woyld be inconclusive) would be so negligible, and nearly impossible to accurately, or acceptably, model, that it is in no way worth the effort.

[Several Puffins]

Hi! I'm probably a SJW (I did make a mod to include bisexual and asexual people in the game), and am pretty sold on constructivism for a lot of things- heaven knows I've seen terrible sexism in my old workplace (and read enough papers on the topic) that makes it difficult for me to believe that we're anything other than measurably biased against women in most well paid and respected sectors, but...

The idea that men are stronger than women is largely cultural. While it may be true that on average a man is more likely to be "stronger" than a woman, it says nothing about whether "this" man is stronger than "that" woman.

here I disagree. This woman may indeed be stronger than that man, but in a random draw from each pool it will happen (say, for upper body strength) 2 times in 100. Putting aside socialisation, I'd be surprised if we discovered it got past 1 time in 10. Sexual dimorphism, though small in humans, likely has a larger effect than you credit. Cognitive differences are, in contrast, HUGELY overblown, and I think that can make us wary of these sorts of arguments.

However, I don't think the game should be changed to reflect this, because :
A) Women do somewhat better at agility tests, so how would we implement the change? Men get higher damage with clubs, women get higher damage with shivs and shortswords? Or lower chance to be hit? That's unnecessarily complicated. Just leave 'em equal.
B) What about other survival issues? Why are we starting with "Men hit hard, women do that (currently rather unimportant) social stuff"? Women generally have better muscular endurance, higher resistances to pathogens and starvation and, of course, are less likely to be affected by X chromosomal genetic diseases. I personally don't want these differences introducing either as I see no good coming from making either male pawns or female pawns clearly favourable for a given colony setup.
C) There're a lot of abstractions away from realism that are far more striking in RimWorld, with far less chance to upset, and I don't see why we'd not address those first.

[SterilizeAllTrolls]

Did you seriously just make an account JUST to complain and label people as "redpilled" and "MRA's? Nobody even mentioned MRA's in either thread before you, you are the one throwing these buzzwords about, and throwing out such baseless accusations.

Try making a post with something backing it up, or at least stop using hostile conjecture.

No, I made an account and then learned that Tynan was allowing redpillers to game the forums and someone DID remark about how they're tired of getting MRA propaganda instead of Rimworld discussions. Typical redpiller, can't stand on the truth so has to misrepresent it to support their stance, "Nooo, nobody here is speaking out against this, you're crazy! Quit being so hostile, everyone loves it!" If you don't want to be labeled like them, quit using their dishonest, manipulative techniques.

If you don't like it, take your threads to Off-Topic instead of using this dishonest tactic where all your ideas for the game just so conveniently happen to coincide with redpill propaganda topics. My posts in this and the other thread describe very clearly what you're doing and comparing that to your posts backs it up plenty.

I don't know what you're so hurt by, my conjecture was quite tame. I'm certain that it isn't about you needing a safe space where nobody can provide dissent. Just take it to off-topic. I don't know why you feel so entitled to having the discussions in every subforum you can hamfist it into.

[brcruchairman]

Zombra, it sounds like you're saying that the extremely complicated and nuanced differences between males and females does not need to be modeled in the game, and you believe the game has little to gain from trying.

Correct.  It is not in the scope of the game.  I wouldn't object to it, except:

It sounds like you're further asserting that it would be harmful to try, because it would perpetuate misinformation due to its necessarily limited scope, which would reinforce socially damaging effects. Am I misunderstanding or misrepresenting something here? I'd like to understand the thrust of your argument, if I can.

You're misunderstanding this part.  My objection is not that it might be limited or "not realistic enough".  (I find it really weird how prevalent the assumption is that "more realistic" is always the goal in gaming!)  My point is that adding controversial material to the game will bring it a negative reputation, and should only be done if the material is necessary to fulfill the game's core vision (e.g. cannibalism is distasteful but important to the survival theme).  Since the game's core vision has nothing to do with sexism, nothing is lost by leaving it out, but damage would be done by adding it.

Ah, okay, thank you for explaining! So what I'm hearing is that your argument is this: The subtle and nuanced complexities regarding the differences between men and women does not need to be molded in the game,  because A) You believe it has nothing to gain in trying, and B) You acknowledge the controversy around such an attempt, and believe that from a developer standpoint it is better to avoid controversy when possible, and include it only when it is necessary to the game's core vision. (It also sounds like point B stems from the belief that controversy tends to hurt both sales and game quality.) Am I understanding you better now? Is there something I missed, or got wrong? I like to understand people's stances, particularly when they present them so eloquently.

Contrast this with Mumble's belief that A) adding such nuances would add depth to the game, enabling better stories, (and the corollary that a primitive simulation is better than no simulation) and B) the further assertion that an artist should create regardless of reception. (e.g., make their complete vision without tempering it based on how people will respond)

Point A for both sounds to me like a perfectly valid difference of opinion; some people like realism, others feel it's unnecessary and bogs down the game. Point B on both sounds like there could be a discussion about it, but that too would be off-topic and perhaps better suited to its own thread. (E.g., "Does controversial content hurt the game?") A new thread would actually be pretty nifty, as I recall a great debate on the topic of the inclusion of drugs which would fit in nicely.

To Iota and Puffins, I feel like you may be talking past each other. Iota, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're claiming that culture alone can account for the physiological differences between men and women. (Incidentally, this is the stance I usually take, but that's neither here nor there.) Puffins, it sounds like you disagree, but prefer to make the point that it's not worth implementing the differences anyway due to their complexity and the amount of work involved.  And now we come to the part where I ask where I messed up and misunderstood. Please correct me when (not if) I err and misrepresent your opinion. ^ ^

To me, it sounds like the arguments in this thread boil down to a largely valid difference in opinion, namely whether or not enough is added by modeling the nuances of the differences to be worth the coding effort. Of course, I'm also probably projecting my own view on you all; if anyone disagrees and feels there's something that doesn't boil down to the above, please let me know.

I'd also like to thank those in this thread for being calm, civil, and compassionate (and on-topic despite some of my off-topic bits. <.< My baaaaad.) It's folks like you that make me love this forum.

[Anomaly]

Honestly, I'm shocked at the number of people who think genetics plays no role in combat capability.  Such things can be seen in so many other mammals. Is it odd that humans would be the same?

Average vs Average men have far greater upper body strength, higher percentage of lean body mass, better spatial awareness and even higher adrenaline production under stress. Ill leave you to google any real military report on male vs female performance for the result. 

This isn't to say women would fare worse in a survival situation. In scenarios without combat they would often more be likely to make it - but that wasn't the topic.

The topic was about body and gender having an effect on combat in the game so, to me, this is a discussion of realism vs fun.

Body type: This one is simple; visual representation of statistics is a good thing. The bruiser model should represent someone who can throw a punch. The fat model should be slow and the thin model weak. Beyond that, attractive characters should have shapes fitting the archetypes for men and  women. Ugly characters could be plain or misshapen; facial scarring could be visible.  Should an NPC change, their model should as well.

Separating gender is a different matter as it would make the game more complex as opposed to simpler visually.  In addition,  I don't think the game has enough depth and character interaction yet to represent genders in game and do it well.  Many of the areas in which women shine would require social nuances that the game lacks.

So many games pretend that gender doesn't exist, I think I would find a dose of realism to be a welcome change of pace. Few games have the right elements to pull it off. Rimworld is close but not quite there yet.

[vampiresoap]

Our cultural practices, such as how boys and girls are educated at a young age, and what activities they are encouraged or allowed to participate in, affect their future "strength" and "skill."

So the average guys' childhood upbringings cause them to have more muscles than average women in the future? Good to know! Such an easy way to manipulate genetics. Why do we even have gene labs at all? Just teach our kids manners and shit all day and they'll grow up freaking strong...for some reason...cuz "gender theory" wishful thinking magic...

[DaemonDeathAngel]

Anomaly, the thing is, weight only has a real effect on combat, if the person knows how to control their weight. As well, pure amount of muscle does not equal strength. Body builders that use steriods have massive muscle volume, but they are still weaker than a normal Joe Schmoe that has worked bailing hay or working construction their entire life. That is due to the type of muscle they have.

I am 175lbs, but have worked constructions most my entire life, I have found very few people, unless they have done the same, that can throw a punch or kick as hard as I can.

It's not about size.

[brcruchairman]

So the average guys' childhood upbringings cause them to have more muscles than average women in the future? Good to know! Such an easy way to manipulate genetics. Why do we even have gene labs at all? Just teach our kids manners and shit all day and they'll grow up freaking strong...for some reason...cuz "gender theory" wishful thinking magic...

I think you may have misunderstood the point there, Vamp. While what you just said is as ridiculous as you intended it to sound, Iota's original point does have merit. In particular, right now boys are implicitly told to rough house, play tag, et cetera, and as they grow older, participate in physical sports. Those build both musculature as they develop, and habits to continue it into their adult life, to say nothing of the sort of coordination that is necessary to do such things and not fall flat on one's face.

Contrast this with girls who, while they start with similar pressures in early childhood, are quickly pushed by both implicit and explicit social mores towards a more social end of the spectrum. When a girl roughhousing is viewed as abnormal (regardless of whether the view is positive or negative) and playing sports is an alternative and not the norm, it's no wonder that there's a resultant lack of coordination or strength among the significant population that was discouraged from such physical pursuits.

An excellent example of this is reality TV shows, especially ones taking place in a high school setting. It's worth paying attention and seeing how many of the male characters behave in a physical manner (e.g., physical confrontation, participating in contests of strength, speed, or skill, and so on) versus how many female characters do the same. However, I'm going to admit here that what I'm offering is anecdote; your experience may differ extremely from mine, and that's okay. That would just mean that rather than Iota having a solid point, instead it's an ambiguous difference of opinion. Either way, though, I'm pretty sure you understand that what your post said and what Iota meant aren't the same thing; you seem like a smart fella, and I can't imagine you making a leap like that in anything but satire.

SterilizeAllTrolls, I have a question. I admit, I'm not sure what you mean by Redpiller. >.> I think my internet education has been lacking, 'cause the way you talk, it sounds like something that should be common knowledge like Men's Rights Activists. But I don't recognize it personally, so would you be willing to elaborate on what you mean?

Incidentally, while I can see how one would come to the conclusion that this thread contains MRA points of view, I think that, based off the notion I'm hearing here of "Men and women are different qualitatively, not different in worth" that they don't actually stem from the same misogyny and hate that MRA does. I don't agree with the way those differences should me molded, and I certainly don't agree with the extent that some are claiming genetic or sex-linked affect it, but ultimately that's a difference of opinion, and one which can be talked about without dismissing each other's points of view out of hand as bigotry. Does that make sense? I feel like I may be rambling here. The tl;dr is that there are at least some in this thread who are arguing a point which MRA members also make, but doing it for very different reasons, so I feel it's unfair to paint everyone with a brush because of surface similarities. (See also, Christianity and Westboro Baptist Church; similar arguments on the surface, but coming from very different places about it, which can lead to a dramatically different outcome.)

ANYWAY! Going back on-topic, I'd be interested to hear what people think about the inclusion of (completely aside from gender) musculature and build having a mechanical effect in-game. Since that seems to be what a lot of this boils down to, I think that's a good thing to discuss. Anomaly made an interesting proposal, that including build in the game not as having its own mechanical effect, but rather as a result of mechanical differences is an interesting one. Like he said, it'd make it easier to visually determine, at a glance, a pawn's traits and roles. I think that'd be a pretty nifty inclusion.

Regarding the more complex simulation of musculature et cetera, my personal opinion is that while it would add some depth and variability, it'd take a lot of work on the coding end for relatively minor gains in terms of fun. What do the rest of y'all think? Setting aside gender for now, do you think individual pawn variation is worth modeling and including in the game?

[pfhorrest]

melee skill alone is an awful measure of "strength" alone. Mining is also strength base, but quite simply strength effects a multitude of skills... This is less a theory, and more a way to dismiss this idea, IMO.

not sure what you mean about the comparison for the kickboxers, they are so different its not worth bringing up...I bring up male and female marines, because theres few other factors BESIDES gender

As for creation / generation, isn't making hard caps on CREATION FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more sexist?

I mean consider this...scenario A, most males and females are subtly different, but you occasionally find a very strong female, or weak female...its noticable, but mostly subtle, and you dont generate them manually, so its not a big deal, you chalk it up to randomness.

Scenario B, you create a female charecter, and try to put 9 points in strength in a fallout esqe stat setup, and the game says NOPE!!! YOU CANNOT MAKE A WOMAN OVER 7 STRENGTH CAUSE SHES A WOMAN!!!

first scenario just suggests a pattern.... the second says strong women simply do not, and cannot exist.  One I would consider conforming to reality and minimally offensive, the other I would consider highly obtuse and HIGHLY offensive.

I find it hilarious you find that better 

I bring up the comparison for the male kickboxer vs. the female marine because your argument seems to be of the all-else-equal variety, well in a game like Rimworld where there's huge variances in character backgrounds I feel that situations where not all else is equal would be more common.

Hard caps on creation of characters do what you wanted - model male and female biological differences. That would only be on initial creation of a character, of course the level caps for training a skill would be the same for both men and women. However, it would also necessitate that all characters are created at age 18-21.

Your "scenario A" seems to be what we already have in Rimworld, so what changes to the game are you arguing for exactly?

[mumblemumble]

@Troll : Ill keep this brief
-if you have problems with people, use the report function
-if you think someone is breaking the rules, use the report function
-if you want to convince others, make a logical argument
-nobody was "hurt" by your words, we just want to encourage diolog / discussion, and help you say you opinion.
-The only one severely off topic ATM is you.

@Iota : the reason why "this" and "that" arguments are invalid, is because they fall under the anecdotal evidence.

I can make an argument where THIS 9mm pistol didn't kill THAT senators brain with a headshot, but that does not mean MOST 9mm headshots are lethal.

If you want to make arguments, you must do a large scale, NOT cherry picking.

and as said before, cultures don't change bones.

@ puffins : I agree women should have strengths, but they should reflect reality.... any people who have problems with this...seem to have problems with reality itself, it seems.

Women should have better agility and dexterity, but it should scale with high strength tasks. Children are more agile than adults, but children are bad mechanics, because they lack the strength.

@deathangel : I would dare to say, maybe this is just better cognative ability? You know, like, you know how to effectively punch / kick, while body builders just flail limbs around like morons? I've seen this, where MASSIVE dudes do not understand how to throw jabs, or lack muscle in the places necessary for a good punch.

I would dare say, with a few hours of combat training, a top of the line body builder could whoop your ass...no offense buddy =P Sure your strong, and adept, but that sounds like one of the cases of being big, but really dumb.

But also it depends how intense of a body builder, some get so roided they are walls of flesh, but can barely move because they are so muscular. These guys, despite being intimidating, aren't that hard to fight assuming you can avoid punches, because their muscle actually IS a detriment to agility, so with high agility, you can get them on the ground, choke hold, and well...yeah.

So, what do you mean by body builder? MMA heavyweight? Rock dwayne johnson? Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime?

@BR : This is true, but this is boys / girls being told to play up their strengths rather than weaknesses.

We can tell a girl to be a body builder and a hardass, but at the end of the day, even if she dedicated 110% of time to it, she will still be underneath "average" males, unless she got a DAMM good dice roll genetically.

We can tell boys to be pretty, sensitive, ect, and delicate, but they won't be as good as that, won't be happier.

also, it will make both less desirable as mates in general, so really, conforming to gender norms helps life happiness, as well as ensuring they will go for what they are best at.

@PFHOREREST : comparing random people isn't scientific though. Your comparison of 2 people means absolutely nothing scientifically, and is borderline offtopic. What is gained by comparing the 2, scientifically?

Hard caps on creation of charecters is NOT what I wanted, because rimworld doesn't even have that, it has generation.

Scenario A is actually very different because male / female is not a factor in abilities at all, JUST like I said about body types.

If we scientifically test the following :
-gender
-body shape
-skin color

where all other variables are the same...we get the results that gender, body shape, and skin color hold 0 effects mechanically.

This is why I said the kickboxer / marine comparison was bad, because it purposely includes other variables. Thats unscientific... Lets watch the variables.. ...for SCIENCE!~