wizardry is woefully short on the differences between males and females - not that there should be more to make it more realistic, but rather because it adds depth and character to the game and strategies...

so what are your ideas for spicing up male and females? could be items, classes.... two ideas to get you started:

female spellcasters should start with a few extra points (5?) in air and water, males with extra in fire and earth.

male humans should start with higher strength, but females 5 extra bonus points (let's face it, they're better than us at whatever they decide, and dont bother arguing about it).

Originally, the Valk/Lord classes were exclusively Female/Male, but for some reason, that was changed in Wizardry 8.

Your idea about strength has been used in other games, including earlier Wizardries. I'm not fond of it myself. I think there's enough in the game just from the differences that go with the race/class combinations. Adding more for male/female would just bring in more complexity without adding anything good.

<center>Nightowl2</center>

D.W. Bradley of Wiz 5,6, and 7 fame got much flack for making a difference in abilities between M/F. I think we should let this one go. An interesting thing is that women are less strong in the physical side of police work but better at keeping their cool. They are better (in some ways) for the community but not for the macho things that require brute force. This is a generalization, but is based on a study made maybe ten years ago. It was surprising at the time that women had skills at all comparable to men in the police force. There are differences, but maybe we should leave the M/F differences out of RPGs. My 2 pence.

it's just a game, the people who complained really ought to lighten up about these things. robert jordan's book series, the wheel of time, contains the kind of magical differences i described regarding fire and earth vs. air and water, and nobody's outlawing books, or that series.

also, i didnt see anyone complaining about threads discussing additional spells, items, races, or classes, any of which adds complexity, and richness, to the game.

right now, there's really no reason to pick men or women in the game - you might as well have it genderless. i thought it would be interesting to see what kinds of ways all y'all would come up with of creating some of the aforementioned richness.

some more ideas:

how about lizardmen having 5 more vitality and lizardwomen having 5 more strength (they're the dominant in that species)...

maybe gnomish men have 10 more in artifacts to start the game, but gnome women 10 more in communication

a women-only bow for rangers that gives 10% IK

So how about some stuff for Intersex, Transgendered and Hermaphroditic people? We are all so much more alike than we are different, so really, i disagree with perpetuating invented differences.

I usually take more, or all females because of the female only items they can wear.

I tend to use males as my 'Tanks' and females as my main casters, bards, gadgeteers etc. I mostly do that as you get that stamina pendent in Arnika, useful for females.
Differences between the sexes can be a good thing, different ways to develop your party, you can run the same classes in 2 different games and develop them totally separately, makes it more interesting. Unlocking powerstrike or reflection 2 or 3 levels sooner would make a big difference.
Just my 2 pence worth.

Personally I like not being penilized in anyway for choosing an all female or all male group. Or what ever mix suits my fancy. The fact is that my party was chosen more for the voices than anything else. Just wish there were more pics & voices to choose from. After one or two parties all the favorites are used and have to be reused. My 2p.

I agree, more pics and voices would be cool.

I think you are wrong there because of the female only stamina regenerating items.

I always pick an all male party; just because if I wanted to hear a bunch of weird female voices yakking all the time I could just stay in my apartment :D

I think you are wrong there because of the female only stamina regenerating items. </font>[/QUOTE]yes, and if you have an all female party, then you can't use the Chieftain's Mace. (but you have have to mug Chief Gari to get it)

Personally, I'd like more differentiation, but then I miss the days of Wizardry 1 sitting in front of an Apple IIe for hours hoping to roll enough points for a Samurai. But I don't miss the same experience with Wiz Gold, because the interface was so clunky (mouse this mouse that). If they bring back randomness, maybe they could have a % chance of a stereotypically sexed character (e.g. 80% burly guys with STR bonus, 20% weakling with smaller INT bonus + maybe extra points)

Chieftain's Scepter is not my idea of a great mace, anyway.
But there IS that Cameo Locket!

Interesting point, sultan! Here's another thought:

I don't want a distinction between male and female! Why, you ask? Well, simply because I want to set up my party the way I like it without suffering disadvantages. E.g., I really NEED 2 casters, Marduk and Tiamat, which are male and female resp., but I don't want any of the two to be "worse" than the other, which would be the case if, like you suggest, males are stronger, but dumber than females. So in order to be able to apply the make the characters of my party have the sexes I want them to have, I really like that there's no difference, because otherwise I'd have to think about something like "I want the bishop to be male, but females are better suited for this class", and I don't want that! So,keep it the way it is, I like it [img]smile.gif[/img]

On the other hand, the same would apply to races as well, but I don't fell unhappy with certain races being better suited to a certain class than others, so I'm not really sure why the same kind of "individuallity" would bother me in the question of the sexes....

Cheers
Philipp

P.S.: Now that I read my post, I'm not sure if I am to write "sex" or "gender", so please read the one that suits, even if I used the wrong one (be gentle, I'm german [img]smile.gif[/img] )

Phillip (Pyrates): In English, sex refers to biology (as in XX or XY), gender to the cultural expectations based on sex. Both biology and cultural expectations/experience can affect physical and mental development. A biological female (sex) can have a male (gender) upbringing and vice versa (this is quite rare or course).

Regarding this thread more specifically, I noticed that so far, everyone has seemed to assume that the expectations we have of male and female humans should apply to the fantasy races as well. I guess there is no reason to assume that female fairies wouldn't be genetically and socially predisposed toward more physical prowess than their male counterparts, that female lizardmen would be less intelligent but faster than male lizardmen, etc. I agree with Pyrates that forcing a male/female difference in starting characteristics actually subtracts from the flexibility of the game (it would make me feel more compelled to pick the 'more appropriate' sex; I suppose that one could argue that personality could affect starting characteristics as well - then I again lose in the flexibility as I wouldn't want to be the intellectual Lizardwoman fighter and suffer a double hit against strength and vitality; I'm not saying I would pick an intellectual lizardwoman, it's just an example... [img]smile.gif[/img] . The great thing about being able to put characteristic points where you want them is that you can customize your characters to fit what you want in a character. The different races already provide a lot of options for base characteristics - and if you want your female characters to be weaker, just don't put as many points into strength, etc.