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

[Tynan]

I think it would be interesting to model things like height, weight, muscle mass, etc. Just basic physical characteristics. It affects characterization (a really tall person is different than a really short person in various ways, even including things like how easy they are to shoot, how fast they can run, how much meat they yield).

It's just that adding all those numbers is a significant change and it just hasn't been the highest priority thing so far. I worry about attaching too many numbers to characters, it risks drowning the player in statistics and obscuring the emotional, storyful parts of the characterization.

If we did model things like height and muscle mass it would make most sense to have them be sex-dimorphic, I think. But like I say, these numbers don't exist atm.

I don't want to "skip over the mechanism" and just start modeling the assumed outcomes of these with skill offsets. Skills are skills, they represent how much practice a pawn has, not a general measure of ability (those are found in the info card with stats like, "Butchering efficiency" etc).

(forgive me if I missed something, I haven't read the whole discussion).

[A Friend]

Well, I guess that settles that...

[Razzoriel]

I think it would be interesting to model things like height, weight, muscle mass, etc. Just basic physical characteristics. It affects characterization (a really tall person is different than a really short person in various ways, even including things like how easy they are to shoot, how fast they can run, how much meat they yield).

It's just that adding all those numbers is a significant change and it just hasn't been the highest priority thing so far. I worry about attaching too many numbers to characters, it risks drowning the player in statistics and obscuring the emotional, storyful parts of the characterization.

If we did model things like height and muscle mass it would make most sense to have them be sex-dimorphic, I think. But like I say, these numbers don't exist atm.

I don't want to "skip over the mechanism" and just start modeling the assumed outcomes of these with skill offsets. Skills are skills, they represent how much practice a pawn has, not a general measure of ability (those are found in the info card with stats like, "Butchering efficiency" etc).

(forgive me if I missed something, I haven't read the whole discussion).

Except we've been through these arguments before.

A hulking male with a VAT grown soldier background hits as hard as a thin woman with an accounting background. They also take the same amount of damage before being killed/downed.

It does not help in your quest of attaining drama  material when you use human averages for such outliers. A 10% bonus penalty stat would be a huge step towards acknowledging that. You wont be lost in stats if you know the core basics of human biology and bodysize dimorphism.

But of course you can also keep trying to appease the crowd which so much wants sex equality then bashes you by lying on your background code. Its your game after all.

[Bozobub]

Excuse me, Razzoriel?  You badly need to reread what Tynan just wrote.

[mumblemumble]

Except we've been through these arguments before.

A hulking male with a VAT grown soldier background hits as hard as a thin woman with an accounting background. They also take the same amount of damage before being killed/downed

Currently this is true...but people are suggesting this CHANGE, and tynan just said its interesting BUT, would provide too many numbers...something which someone else suggested, which makes sense.

its not so much that its needed right now, it was mostly that people were demanding it be never added.

yes, it DOES exist how you say currently, and myself, op, tynan, and others, are suggesting it would be INTERESTING to change this. However, it makes sense what he says..its a lot of numbers, lots of stats, and as much as I like the idea, I know its not a huge change compared to a16

Honestly, I'm just happy he said the idea is interesting by itself...

It does not help in your quest of attaining drama  material when you use human averages for such outliers. A 10% bonus penalty stat would be a huge step towards acknowledging that. You wont be lost in stats if you know the core basics of human biology and body size dimorphism.

I agree it would be fun (as tynan said) but I also understand its not worth it at the moment. Again, he approved it, potentially silencing the people who insist it would be awful for it, which is all that matters to me.

But of course you can also keep trying to appease the crowd which so much wants sex equality then bashes you by lying on your background code. Its your game after all.

He just said he is interested in the idea.....basically implying he won't censor such tiny things for such people.

[sadpickle]

-snip-

I still think making pawns functionally different on the basis of their gender is the wrong way to go. Leave it to modders. RimWorld does not need to strive for "realism" of all degrees in it's mechanics. We have skills and the passion system, which makes some pawns good at certain things and just average at others, with some things being completely outside their skillset or capability. This is plenty of granularity and provides a simplified (aggressively so) model of what we might call "Skills" and "Talents".

I'm totally fine with some pawns being stronger than others, or being faster or requiring less food. I don't think these should correlate to sex, at all. Not only because it does nothing for the "focus" of the game (the story-generating aspect), but because the political atmosphere of the world right now is an absolute minefield when it comes to gender. We've already seen how people with an axe to grind can misrepresent the code in RimWorld. I don't see actually differentiating the sexes in the code going over any better. And this atmosphere is only going to intensify with time. Identity politics is here to stay, I think (sadly).

Besides, this is the future. Who is to say women cannot receive glitterworld treatments that make their muscle and bone density on par with men's. Female bodybuilders bust ass to get to where they are, but they still have to take hormones to get there. In the future there would undoubtedly be ways to do this more effectively, and persistently. Gene drives as an example; technology that already exists but refined over the thousands of years that have elapsed between now and the RimWorld scenario.

Acknowledging differences in the sexes, IN REALITY, is a good thing. Bad to be blind to reality.

Doing it in the game gets a big NO from me. Adds nothing but fragility and makes the game a target for people with an agenda.

[magicbush]

I agree op. It is funny to see some getting somehow offended by this topic. Gotta love the modern pointless pc crowd with no self control.

[rina_m]

excuse me but wouldn't it just be politically correct to its own sort of gender politics (pulling from its own canon of facticity) to institute top-down gender differences? the issue here is not gender's relevance to fighting skill, but that the game doesn't have an RPG-like stats system that describes bodies thru variables such as vitality, strength and constitution. i'm very sorry that people need to use gender as a short-circuit in their reasoning about human phenotype.

[b0rsuk]

excuse me but wouldn't it just be politically correct to its own sort of gender politics (pulling from its own canon of facticity) to institute top-down gender differences? the issue here is not gender's relevance to fighting skill, but that the game doesn't have an RPG-like stats system that describes bodies thru variables such as vitality, strength and constitution. i'm very sorry that people need to use gender as a short-circuit in their reasoning about human phenotype.

I think they're using the "Poisoning The Well" tactic, which is essentially a preemptive personal attack. Another example is "Chris is fascist so don't listen to him." In the example, Chris is associated with something that triggers a knee-jerk reaction in modern society. Criticizing women or suggesting women are not completely equal in all aspects is taboo, so it's an useful label to attach to shut down all possible future discussion. Intimidation by shaming.

[MarcTheMerc]

No. This is an idea that only enforces stereotypes.

Whats so bad about that? I mean, the stereotype that men are stronger is true. Also, Skill is PART of it. You might be an amazing swordsman, but if someone has twice your strength, its an uphill battle, even if they aren't the most skilled.

Dark souls is a good example, where many monsters aren't per-say skilled, but are strong enough they can shit all over you unless you have immense skill.

As much as i love dark souls, from a martial standpoint chosen undead, ashen one, etc (regardless of how good the player is) is not a good fighter infact they are actually a bad one. Furthermore a major point in dark souls is age, gender, etc have no effect on combat.

[mumblemumble]

@Sadpickle.

Rimworld only doesn't NEED it, if you qualify what the need is for. If the need is for deeper mechanics, damn right rimworld "needs" it. More importantly, why do you suggest it need to NOT have it?

The focus of the game is a colony simulator, and having an accurate simulation could DAMN WELL fall under the "focus" of being a good simulator. More importantly, very, very few games get banned, or damaged, and usually for pretty egregious reasons, like "rapelay" in japan. And many "banned" games were simply because of the times : carmageddon iirc was banned for a time, but now such insane violence is commonplace. Doom faced ban pressure after the columbine massacre, but people understood it was because of 2 deranged kids whom could not fit in, with many OTHER issues, with doom being merely a thing they enjoyed which fit their tastes. It was not the primary cause in the slightest of it. Point is, now adays, you need a incredibly fucked up game to get banned. Go check out postal 2 for a bit on steam, and keep in mind, this not only isn't banned, but got GREENLIT on steam a few years ago. In that you can piss in peoples faces, use cats as silencers, burn people alive and piss on them, smoke meth, ect, and its STILL out there... rimworld won't be banned ok? The most that will happen is whiny feminists will write an article and they will all groan about patriarchy. And no, actually, people are very, VERY sick of identity politics now in general. If I had to take a guess at the population from america, europe, and the first world countries (because it only EXISTS there) I would honestly say maybe 30% think sjw stuff (I'm including 3rd wave feminism, BLM, pronoun bs, and all that silliness) is utter BS, another 30% don't like it, but stay out of it entirely not wanting the severe annoyance of being yellled at, another 20% support it JUST so they wont be ostrasized, and another 20% support it and fully believe the things they say, regardless of if the logic is challenged. I could very well be wrong on the numbers but the point is this : Not everyone agree, and for every person who whines and screams and pounds the floor and cries about sexism, another person will shake their head, and be glad these people aren't being given their way just because they demand it. You can actually see this is the case with how sales jumped after the article from RPS. People saw it, and even though before they saw rimworld and said "thats neat, but not worth the money", They bought it then just to SPITE the woman who wrote the article...and I suspect such a thing will continue.

Whos to say a woman doesn't get treatment? The lore...lore says no modifications on normal humans unless stated otherwise, and no evolutionary pressure. This is inconsistent with the lore. It can exist for select women in the FUTURE updates, like a woman is enhanced for that, im fine with this, but saying "all women were engineered to be equal to men" goes against the current lore / setup.

fragility

.. ....wait what ??? I really cannot help to think of "white" or "male" fragility, when you say this, and I really, really hope you aren't starting with that.  You have a right to disagree, don't get me wrong, nobody will ban you for it here, and I, as much as I disagree, would never want to block someone I disagree with. This says, I would like you to explain THAT comment, because it confuses / worries me.

@b0r  : Got a good point. This is what I've seen all too much in this thread, op and others suggest women aren't the same and then people get upset, asking if we are saying women are subhuman. If I wanted to say a woman was subhuman, I was say shes subhuman. But I DONT think they are subhuman, so I don't call them that. In serious discussion, assuming things should be kept to a minimal.

@marc : I was speaking more along the lines of say, the giant ass bolrog, dragon, the 2 bosses with the giant sword / hammer, ect... they are strong enough too kill you effortlessly, and the only way you have any hope to win is IMMENSE skill and agility, as a straight up fight is impossible. Also helps the enemies are slow as hell, but still. 

My point was not to say dark souls has gender differences (they dont) but that a man, with a larger frame (compared to say, the dark souls big nasties), would have an advantage against a (the player) woman, but not necessarily ENOUGH of an agility advantage to make combat equal against a man. This isn't to say its impossible for a girl, but its very hard.... ...like dark souls.

Also, contrary to popular belief, men are not much slower than women. Men IIRC have very slightly higher top speed (taller) higher reaction time (agility) and of course strength... Plus mechanical inclination. Where as women are much more detail oriented, social and emotionally oriented.

This isn't to say men are better at everything, because men are WORSE at those last 3 things generally speaking. And those 3 things are very useful for a society.

[b0rsuk]

@b0r  : Got a good point. This is what I've seen all too much in this thread, op and others suggest women aren't the same and then people get upset, asking if we are saying women are subhuman. If I wanted to say a woman was subhuman, I was say shes subhuman. But I DONT think they are subhuman, so I don't call them that. In serious discussion, assuming things should be kept to a minimal.

For future reference - that's a Strawman argument. Misrepresenting the actual point the person made as something superficially similar, but easier to refute. Then, someone proclaims they have won the argument.

Before we go into gender, what gameplay impact could variation in bodies have ? Tall men like me could deal more melee damage and perhaps withstand more punishment (i'm not letting anyone try!). On the other hand, when bullets start flying, I bet I would wish to be a 150cm woman. I also have a hard time buying shoes (this could replace "death man's clothing").

If we go with the idea that women have better social skills, that's not much of an advantage in Rimworld. I currently have a 5 people colony, only two of them have Social enabled and it was at 0. I'm in my first summer, no social fights so far, a few wooing attempts were rejected and that's it. I have a bloody hard time recruiting a good pirate. Really, Social is one of the worst skills in Rimworld, it seems to affect so little, and even for getting new colonists there are many other ways. Pawns actually don't socialize much - there are parties and "relaxing socially" which works when alone in a room!! They never explicitly seek one another just to be in company of a person they like. They mostly ignore each other.

It's undeniable that women's physical attractiveness burns out much quicker with age, in part because they have softer skin. Women who spend their youth partying may find themselves ignored when they're in their mid 30's.

[Thyme]

@mumble²: Those political correctness kind of people might be a minority, but they have quite a say (dunno if correct phrasing, another try: they shape our society by forcing their ridiculous views upon us). As a student, I get those weird student newspapers written by other students. Once there was an article about people with learning disability (Personen mit Lernschwäche), it covered 4 pages. Took me about half the article to get that this is about mentally disabled (geistig Behinderte) students, thanks to darn euphemisms. I see such people (the authors) as the initial nucleus of every shit storm that happens (no matter if left or right or any other orientation). Sheepish people then amplify their voice. Often untill they're loud enough that they appear as a majority/important. The greatest effect I see in normal people are lazy jokes about forbidden words, but the magnitude is big enough to influence politics. Three years ago, Austrias Ministry of Defense gave out instructions on how "drill sergeants" should speak to our servicemen. Certain phrases were "forbidden" and replaced with gender neutral ones. Words such as Mannschaft have been forbidden (that's how we call the lowest ranks of soldiers, NATO OR-1 -> OR-4), because it contains the word men (Mann). The rank Hauptmann, however, was not changed (NATO OF-2). NASA is already way ahead of us. See #14.

tl;dr
I ackknowledge that feminazis are a minority, but never underestimate their impact.

[mumblemumble]

I know what a straw man is...hey, perhaps men could be slightly more likely to insult people directly, I know men are GENERALLY more aggressive on average, and fight a bit more.

as for the social stat, more things could be included for this, trading is sparsely used, and recruiting is too.

This is true about womens looks, and really sad since, frankly, many girls have REPULSIVE personalities and are proud of it...it will make extremely bitter old women when older. =<

@ thyme : This is true, but goes both ways. Sheep follow whoever convinces them, and staying silent is what makes them powerful. They dont have actual good arguments for many things (manspreading, mansplaining...but i guess im just mansplaining here) but if unchallenged, sheep and idiots will believe as they are told.

I understand they have a foothold, and if I'm entirely, brutally honest, people who kick and scream to have their way without a good reason, and have a childish campaign which uses disruptive, shaming, or other pressure tactics against civilians, need to be told to get fucked, and if they get violent, disruptive, or otherwise hostile, using dishonest, underhanded, or scare / intimidation campaigns / threats of violence, and especially actual violence (as many do) I believe they need a harsh, legally sanctioned ass beating, because THAT technically falls under one of the definitions of terrorism : To use criminal violence to push a political agenda.

Don't get me wrong, I find that definition slightly silly, since it means if you legalize it, you stop terrorism, but its still something to consider. An open marketplace of ideas means everyone gets to choose, and everyone gets to SHARE ideas, and people who stifle this are against freedom, and have 0 respect for me.

To be clear : I'm not saying everyone who has an idea against me need to be told to get fucked, or needs an ass whooping, but people who are incredibly rude, disrupt events, cause shit, get into peoples lives because they dont agree need to be told to fuck off, and people who stop traffic, riot, threaten or intimidate people, and use other practically guerilla tactics to enforce their political ideology need their ass handed to them. I don't mind them sharing ideas, I dont mind them convincing others, but it should be in a setup where them, and myself have equal opportunity, and neither is underhanded, or forcing someone. Be if physically, violently, or other means.

Whats interesting is, this is actually becoming a thing in parts of Europe from what I hear, where one country put a law on the books where if you are a criminal who goes heavily against the law (rape, assault, ect) and don't attempt to somewhat adapt to social norms, you are exempt from police assistance. This means if you are a jerk, doing illegal things, breaking the law, ect...the police have full right to ignore you if people beat the fuck out of you. Granted, its at everyone's discretion, and I have faith in both citizens, and polices judgement on this, but I think its not a bad idea..police are a good thing, but police cannot always get there for every thing...so putting some power into the hands of the common man is a good idea.

Granted, such a law will be messy at first, but it might help in the long run.

[tocsin1990]

I think this is getting itself off topic again.  lets look at the base issue.  if gender dimorphism were to be added into the game, which abilities would be best to affect this?

Personally, after thinking on it for a while, I'm actually leaning more towards it being an increase in a health stat, rather than a skill or trait.  like, adding a +10% manipulation for females, and a 10% moving for males.  Manipulation affects a large percentage of the "detail oriented" skills, like crafting, cooking, shooting, farming, and research, while moving is a much larger benefit for "strength oriented" skills, like melee, hauling, and construction.  10% is a small enough benefit that it can be easily outpaced by skill or drugs, yet a large enough benefit that, at least when trying to get the most efficiency out of your base in the beginning, gender would be something to consider in planning.