Realism meta question framed by RQ

[Bill the barbarian]

20 hours ago, Crel said:

I'm not sure we need to jump straight to "Wrong side of history!" from someone positing a question on how to model sexual dimorphism in their own game. As for MGF, isn't that best decided table-by-table? (Not to mention I'm like 90% sure Wonder Woman's got a wee bit more than STR 21...)

 

It does seem a bit histrionic and I will not get into my politics in this forum (would show a major disrespect to the forum, as well as its denizens). But do note that everyone here is using the same respectful principals. You disagree with me and pull out a considered and adult rebuttal. styopa worried he might  cause a shitstorm so he watched his words carefully even while crafting the incendiary piece it became. Hats off to styopa for broaching a dangerous topic with care.

Come back styopa, the pitchforks are faked and we didn't even knot the nooses (gads what an disorganized mob). The forum's denizens reacted well, I have yet to hear any one calling out "off with his head!"? I appreciate that. 

 

20 hours ago, Crel said:

In my prior post, I disagreed with @styopa's assessment of INT between males and females based primarily on the second criterion. If males roll 3D6 and females 2D6+6 for minimum scores of 3 and 8 respectively, then there's some portion of males which are, simply, blithering idiots to a degree not extant in the female population. On that model, about 26% of the male population has INT equal to or less than the lowest 3% of the female population (assuming I've done math right ).

 

So how does one debate sensitive matters and not get noticed. I hope one does not. Yelled at? Only if the provoker deserves it but I am sure such an individual could be approached and asked what they meant first (while loosing a peace knot on one's sword). Allowed free reign to scream obscenities, and things to fowl to imagine?  Nah, that's the world outside of this forum. I only hope that reason can touch all participants, with compassion (hate to say the word but...) being the guide. As to the argument on stats.. haven't an opinion.

Well yeah I do. soltakss* ...  as is his wont is correct. But, my opinion only, let the table decide.

So would you buy Diana having a 23 STR?

 

* soltakss, why does the spell checker hate your name so? four times it insisted on typing "slots" (see it did it again, i typed "dolts" and... I DID NOT TYPE THAT... damn spellchecker)...

Edited June 4, 2019 by Bill the barbarian

[The God Learner]

4 hours ago, g33k said:

The more I think about it, the less I think there is ANY basis to presume human-style sexual dimorphism. 

You give me an uneasy feeling about what the humans of Glorantha actually look like. Personally I confess I prefer human sexual dimorphism, perhaps even mildly exaggerated. 

 

[pachristian]

I identify average heights and weights based on ethnicity and gender, and then give everyone the same points to build with. I believe Chaosium did address the issue once, and their comment “It’s not worth the fights it creates”.

[soltakss]

37 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

* soltakss, why does the spell checker hate your name so? four times it insisted on typing "slots" (see it did it again, i typed "dolts" and... I DID NOT TYPE THAT... damn spellchecker)...

dolts is fair enough, though ...

[g33k]

On the gendered variation on INT ...

Data does not support this in any meaningful way.  As noted, the "average" IQ difference ("g" or "general intelligence") is low enough to be statistically insignificant, and most "IQ" tests are so inaccurate as to regularly return results for the same individual with far greater variation.  Some researchers say they feel the evidence supports higher INT for men; other researchers say it supports higher INT for women; others say the evidence supports no difference.

There is some differences in specific tasks -- men seem to be better at spatial rotation, women at spatial memory.

Women seem to have better "emotional intelligence" and this can particularly show up in social situations such as friends visiting/socializing.

Does anyone really want to try to encode all that (and more, similar, minutia) into RQ-ish rules????

If so... I'm not sure if that makes you a sadist, or a masochist...

[The God Learner]

15 hours ago, g33k said:

It was part and parcel of why most women didn't play, wouldn't play.

There was a column in the Financial Times last weekend ("Stuff the Dragons, I'm just here for the spoilers") which recalled the plight of a young woman enlisted into playing D&D, indeed, recalled it even a couple of decades after the fact. Attribute rolls didn't seem to be the issue, however. Personally, I would instead first discreetly point at the hugely popular maximum munchkinism thread nearby.

A select number of women tried out the RPG concept as it appeared when I went to highschool (at the end of the 70s) -- no less than five of them formed a group of their own for a while, but I never got to hear what they did. I think the last hardcore RPGer standing in our original group more than a decade later was a woman too, though she had apparently switched to LARP towards the end. 

[Jeff]

As far as I am concerned, there is no reason to treat any human sex differently in terms of basic characteristics in the rules. 

[styopa]

18 hours ago, Crel said:

I don't think this successfully models the characteristic difference you're aiming for, because while both males and females on this model have the same maximum rollable INT (18), their minimum rollable varies drastically (3 and 8, respectively). Further, the difference between a 99.5-101.5 and a 100 average is minuscule; IQ isn't an objective measurement, but rather an average based upon tested subjects which occasionally needs to be controlled for a wide variety of variables. For example, a 100 IQ child does not exhibit the same cognitive functions as a 100 IQ adult. My understanding on IQ is that it is best considered in the context of a standard deviation, generally 15 points. So, substantial differences in functioning can be seen between persons of similar age and culture at IQ 85 and IQ 100 after brief conversation, but the difference between 95 and 100 likely isn't obvious.

I think you're getting into the weeds.  I threw the IQ in there as a cheap immediate number, but it isn't by any means the entirety of the position.

For example, I wouldn't for a moment suggest that either gender is inherently more intelligent than the other.  However, I think there are a few memes that are reasonably supported by my amateur perusal of the evidence:

- there tend to be both more genius and mentally challenged men, than there are for women.  (yes, I know that 2d6+6 ends up giving a flatter distribution for females; but solutions that gave BOTH identical top- and bottom values but flatter distributions for one were frankly overly complex)

- the (much) higher bottom end INT for females was an acknowledgment that females seem to be less afflicted with mental retardation than males generally, and the difference becomes more marked as one looks steps through more-profound conditions (although some of the cursory data I looked at had differing demographics, males were invariably worse). 

- ENTIRELY anecdotal; most men I know admit the woman they're with is smarter than them.  Even when she's not listening.

And neither am I writing some sort of dissertation on gender differences in intelligence.

 

[Ian Absentia]

UGH.

!i!

Edited June 3, 2019 by Ian Absentia
Punctuation de-emphasised to underscore the thinly-coded flogging of this dead horse.

[styopa]

16 hours ago, g33k said:

Most of the hoary old propositions were there in the OP.

You say "hoary old propositions" I just say "facts".  Tomato, tohmahtoe.

16 hours ago, g33k said:

It was part and parcel of why most women didn't play, wouldn't play.

LOL, exactly what I meant.  I suggest a system that MATHEMATICALLY advantages women (on average my suggestion deducts 4.5 points (-2.5 in STR, -2 in SIZ), but adds 5 (+2 CON, +2 INT, +1 DEX, better POW result, and MUCH higher minimums in both CON and INT) and it's immediately regarded as somehow an attack on women.  

Hilarious if it wasn't so kneejerk.  Is it that the men here don't like the idea of women having an overall stat advantage?

In my experience, most women didn't play and wouldn't play in that era for A HOST of reasons from "having better things to do" to "personal hygiene of the players".  "A woman character not being as strong as a man" was hilariously pretty far down the list.

20 hours ago, Quackatoa said:

So we have two options: (i) keep physical violence in place, but artificially remove its consequences and context, such as removing sex-based characteristic modifiers; or (ii) to stop making and enjoying games where we solve all our problems by hitting them in the face with an axe, which has after all proven a pretty shitty activity to a lot of people over the ages. As we tend to valorise, idealise and infantilise violence to a considerable degree, and our understanding of the nature and consequences of conflict is fairly shallow, we plumb for (i). Unsurprisingly, really, as choosing (ii) would eradicate the hobby as we know it.

Eradicate the hobby as we know it?  That's a little...overstated? 

Someone please tell Selkana that her fascinating adventures - which DON'T revolve around dungeon crawling and waving sharpened steel at each other - are impossible, then. (https://www.chaosium.com/blogselkanas-saga-11-mad-bad-and-dangerous-to-know/) 

16 hours ago, Joerg said:

But then, how many of your characters are rolled up completely randomly, without selection bias? How much do the rolled statistics survive after the decision whether or not to keep playing that character?

Completely agree.  So what does it matter then if we say "Men have an average CON of 11, women have 13" if people generally pick (or lean toward) the stats they want to play?

And more interestingly, why do people get so very upset by someone noting that women are less physically strong than men?

15 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Without being nasty, alas you are on the wrong side of history as well as MGF here. If a woman wishes to play a Princess Diana of Amazonia why ever not. She shan't achieve said stats if she must roll as a member of the distaff side. Or say I wish to play tim the enchanter™, well I say...

...

You should see the women of the union local I work with and just how strong mentally as well as physically they are! It would amaze you

A.) of course she still can.  We all play exceptional people all the time.

B.) on the former, perhaps you missed that I suggested that women get much BETTER INT stats than men?  And physically, I have no doubt that there are strong women, but it's indisputable that for a random population of men and women, men are on average around 40% stronger. (of course there are a huge variety of ways how you measure strength)

15 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Wish I could cite the details but I remember reading Greg once replying,." We like women!"  to the question why Chaosium and RQ had such reverence  and place for women both as characters and players compared to other '80s games.

Cheers

Yeah, I personally like them too.  And I've never measured a woman's value by whether she could bench press 250lbs or no.  I think women play a central role in RQ, it's one of the more fascinating, genre-trope-breaking elements of Glorantha.  My question is why we need to pretend that they're exactly like men?  Last time I checked, they aren't?

12 hours ago, Crel said:

1. To most accurately model characteristic variety, why would we be slavishly attached to rolling D6s? For example, a roll of 4D4 has a range of 4 to 16, but a similar average to 3D6 (10 v. 10.5). 5D4 creates a fairly interesting spread for INT, with min 5 (for blithering idiots) and max of 20, and an average of 12.5 (near our current 2D6+6). I don't have a full array to suggest, but it seems to me that if we're looking to work from a simulation perspective, the best array of characteristic rolls would be developed by a series of small dice rolled many times--D3s and D4s--with a small additional modifier on top to denote sexual divergence. For characteristics with a great deal of variety, like STR, remain with D6s or go even higher.

I appreciate your thinking about it.  TBH, I don't know why we're slavishly attached to the 3-18 paradigm anyway.  It was just aping D&D in the first place (likely to make conversion easier?) and we're just aping that 40 year old mistake.  CoC7th I believe went to % for stats which makes a crapton more objective sense for all the same reasons a d100 combat system makes more sense.

12 hours ago, Oracle said:

Yes, this is a serious and valid question. But my main objection would be: player characters are not average characters. So with MGF in mind I would refrain from using these quantifiable differences in the character creation process. Unless the players want to do it, but I do not see, why they should ...

We generically represent (as objectively as possible) the stats for horses, dogs, snakes, and sharks.  Why not for humans?  What is it about humans that their representation in the game HAS to be filtered through political correctness (that is not just in question, but FACTUALLY CONTRARY to reality)?  

We don't say "my Fido was an *extraordinary* dog, therefore I refuse to use normal dog stats for any dog in my game".  That would be silly.

Would it be more palatable to suggest these stats for NPCs only?  Except to me, one of the BEST features of RQG is the same rules apply to PCs and NPCs.

 

Before I 'submit' on this comment to go to the page 2 replies...

What I see?  So far, it's 100% *MEN* commenting on these stats.  I'd love to see women's opinions on the idea that female characters (NPCs, if that's more palatable) generally have less STR, slightly less SIZ, better CON, better INT, higher DEX, and better POW to the net of +0.5 stats for females over males.  Most of the women in my life have proven time and again that STR and SIZ aren't the most important stats in the world, and Selkana has abundantly proved that rich, entertaining RQ campaigns don't have to be about murderhobos killing everyone they see.

 

 

[Bill the barbarian]

6 minutes ago, styopa said:

B.) on the former, perhaps you missed that I suggested that women get much BETTER INT stats than men?  And physically, I have no doubt that there are strong women, but it's indisputable that for a random population of men and women, men are on average around 40% stronger. (of course there are a huge variety of ways how you measure strength)

16 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

And I would say, nature of nurture... on average the women of my local are as strong as the men... Intelligence... again equal... on average... The outliers still exist. The strongest member is a man,

 

10 minutes ago, styopa said:

What I see?  So far, it's 100% *MEN* commenting on these stats.  I'd love to see women's opinions on the idea that female characters (NPCs, if that's more palatable) generally have less STR, slightly less SIZ, better CON, better INT, higher DEX, and better POW to the net of +0.5 stats for females over males.  Most of the women in my life have proven time and again that STR and SIZ aren't the most important stats in the world, and Selkana has abundantly proved that rich, entertaining RQ campaigns don't have to be about murderhobos killing everyone they see.

 

Good point.

[Stew Stansfield]

11 minutes ago, styopa said:

Eradicate the hobby as we know it?  That's a little...overstated?

Not in the slightest. Systematically disestablish violence as the principal mode of conflict resolution throughout the 40+ year history of modern roleplaying games, and what are you left with?

[styopa]

1 hour ago, pachristian said:

I identify average heights and weights based on ethnicity and gender, and then give everyone the same points to build with. I believe Chaosium did address the issue once, and their comment “It’s not worth the fights it creates”.

Ah, but sometimes that's the fun.  Not everyone wants to walk softly and avoid making waves all the time.

1 hour ago, g33k said:

Does anyone really want to try to encode all that (and more, similar, minutia) into RQ-ish rules????

As a male, it doesn't bother me in the slightest to say women have higher average intelligence, and higher minimum.  Or give 'em a flat +1, I'd be fine with that too.  

I purposely avoided that +1 because I didn't want to suggest that at the top end either gender is smarter than the other.

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

As far as I am concerned, there is no reason to treat any human sex differently in terms of basic characteristics in the rules. 

Good thing this isn't an errata thread asking for a correction or ruling then.  Just offering an alternative chargen rule for people to toy with.

Just now, Quackatoa said:

Not in the slightest. Systematically disestablish violence as the principal mode of conflict resolution throughout the 40+ year history of modern roleplaying games, and what are you left with?

Yeah, put that way I'd agree on second thought. 

Then again, IMO moving the hobby away from nothing but tidal waves of blood and slaughter isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

I appreciate the generally thoughtful tone of the responses.  Really, I do.

After reading them I guess my final comments in no particular order would be:

- I recognize it is an incendiary topic, but honestly can't figure out why.  If I say Billy is taller than Mary, nobody would reasonably construe that as an insult to Mary in any way.  If I have a class of college students (ie done growing), and say that on average the males are both bigger and stronger than the females in that group, again, I don't think most people would flame-on about that.  Yet broadening the assertion - with equal statistical reliability - to humanity...that's somehow denigratory to women?  I admit, I do NOT comprehend that difference.  Perhaps if I were a woman and had that +1 INT I'd get it?

- I think it is worth remarking that the reactions here (predictably, I have to admit) suggest that losing a few points of STR and SIZ seem to weigh more significantly than gaining a benefit in CON, INT (the most important stat in the game, IMO), POW, and DEX (to a net +0.5 in stats).  Is it really that everyone's campaigns just are nothing but constant fighting?  Or?  (Again, I'd mentioned that I personally would give female characters probably a further extra +1 POW at chargen but still with normal maximums for the reason stated.)

- I think the "well there's nothing that says gloranthan humans are like earth humans" answer is a bit of handwaving.  There's nothing in the RULES that say gloranthan humans have 10 fingers and toes, or only 2 eyes, or lack a gizzard for grinding seed either, but I think we all assume the human norm anyway.

- I entirely agree with the point brought up a couple of ways that players are extraordinary, that (some people would feel) such variations aren't fun, and besides don't players pretty much play the characters they want to anyway?  Agree on all points.  But then I'd semi-seriously ask: if those are all true, why even pretend to offer dice-variable stats? 

- I frankly liked Xena more than Hercules.  I have nothing against super women, ever.  Never had.

[Bill the barbarian]

14 minutes ago, styopa said:

I appreciate the generally thoughtful tone of the responses.  Really, I do.

 

...and that is why I figured I would approach and poke you with a stick, sharp end first, (I aint as dum as I luk, luc,  seem!)  to see if you wold attack or... I mean you seemed reasonable despite the foamy mouth.

Edited June 3, 2019 by Bill the barbarian

[styopa]

36 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

...and that is why I figured I would approach and poke you with a stick, sharp end first, (I aint as dum as I luk, luc,  seem!)  to see if you wold attack or... I mean you seemed reasonable despite the foamy mouth.

The danger of Eurmal isn't that he plays tricks on people.  It's that his curiosity is without boundaries.

Sometimes a guy just wants to see what happens if someone dumps a pot of ale on Ernalda's head with Orlanth sitting right there.  Whatever happens, the results certainly will be interesting. 

[g33k]

32 minutes ago, styopa said:

- I recognize it is an incendiary topic, but honestly can't figure out why.  If I say Billy is taller than Mary, nobody would reasonably construe that as an insult to Mary in any way.  If I have a class of college students (ie done growing), and say that on average the males are both bigger and stronger than the females in that group, again, I don't think most people would flame-on about that.  Yet broadening the assertion - with equal statistical reliability - to humanity...that's somehow denigratory to women?  I admit, I do NOT comprehend that difference.  Perhaps if I were a woman and had that +1 INT I'd get it?

You seem to be stretching beyond the confines of gaming, here...?  I can't quite tell.  But lets get back to gaming.

You're saying that a woman who wants to play a female adventurer has to be less-good at it, in an absolute games-mechanical way.  Notwithstanding CON (which is a boring, passive stat) or INT (which is a boring, statistical-advantage long-run stat (except for sorcerors)); at least POW gives good magic... but what if they want to play some stabby-bashy type?  Here, sweetie... have some magick.  It's just as good, even better!  Really!

Everybody realizes that male power-lifters will lift more than female power-lifters, that the STR difference exists.  In the real world.

You get incendiary by blithely asserting "hey, that's just how it is" and -2'ing the women who came to the table inspired by Xena and Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel and She-Ra.  Take your -2 and stick it... well, let's keep it polite, shall we?  But you're telling the PLAYERS that they should just suck it up, because "hey, that's just how it is."

But dude.  Plant-people elves, and mechanistic vat-grown dwarves, and humans made out of runestuff.  Flying miles-long dragons.  A Lozenge world.

And you think -2'ing the likely choice of half the PLAYERS  "buhcuz sim-u-LAY-shun!" is a good argument?  It just sounds... petty.  Silly.

 

[Lordabdul]

1 hour ago, styopa said:

But then I'd semi-seriously ask: if those are all true, why even pretend to offer dice-variable stats? 

Probably for historical/nostalgia/respect-for-the-original-material reasons. But yes, that's why many groups don't use the "roll the dice" rules for character creation, and instead use house rules -- because players know they want to make a warrior or a thief or a priest or whatever, and they don't want to leave it up to chance to have appropriate scores. That's why CoC has no less than 6 alternate character creation methods (see the Investigator Handbook), and why, most probably, the RQ Gamemaster Guide will have similar options (it's mentioned in RQG that it will have such options).

1 hour ago, styopa said:

I recognize it is an incendiary topic, but honestly can't figure out why

In a purely logical sense, there's not much difference between having different stat rolls for gender and having different stat rolls for species in a fantasy game. However, we don't exist in a pure logical plane of existence, and some things have context and history. There are a whole bunch of other incendiary topics that also fly above my head, so don't feel too bad about it as long as you do recognize that these issues exist (which you seem to). The goal of the GM is to make sure everybody at the table is comfortable and is having fun, after all.

That said, on a purely abstract game design level, making up a character takes several steps that have a specific order. This means that the order between choosing your sex and determining the stats is important. For example, there are some Rune Cults like Eiritha's or Ernalda's which require you to be of a specific gender, which then poses a problem:

• At a table where players have to roll dice for character creation (without any optional/house rule), you roll your stats, and then you know if your character will "look" like a warrior or a shaman or merchant. But if dice rolls are predicated on sex, by the time you know if your character might be a good Ernalda Rune Priestess or not, you already had to pick between male or female! This means that some options are effectively "closed" to the players, and players generally don't like that IME.
• At a table where players are using a house rule that lets them (re)distribute points between stats, or re-roll low dice, or whatever, the whole idea of having dice rolls that have any statistical relevance flies out of the window, so make sure to not mix the two.

Finally, as Jeff pointed out, we should recognize the fact that the point is not to make statistically accurate characters in the first place (we are supposed to play heroes after all!). And even assuming that's what players at your table really consider "fun", then it should start with the elephant in the room: you don't really choose how you're born, so if anything, that house rule should be preceded by a coin flip to determine your sex randomly (and that's already ignoring some "corner" cases of human biology... it should probably be a D100 on a table... also to be followed by another D100 roll on another table to determine your gender! Humans are complicated...).

So anyway, assuming you know for sure nobody at your table will be upset, I'd say you can run your game as you want, but, I think, for that house rule to make sense on a game design level, it would indeed need to be preceded by rolls to determine sex/gender. Have fun!

Edited June 3, 2019 by lordabdul

[g33k]

3 hours ago, styopa said:

What I see?  So far, it's 100% *MEN* commenting on these stats.  I'd love to see women's opinions on the idea that ...

I think we need to give Ellie a pass on this:  she works for Chaosium, but in a junior role & Jeff has already chimed in... and it's an "incendiary" topic.

Unless she prefers to comment, of course.

 

But while we're on the topic...  how many (other) regular users here identify overtly/publicly in this space as women?

 

[Shiningbrow]

8 hours ago, The God Learner said:

You give me an uneasy feeling about what the humans of Glorantha actually look like. Personally I confess I prefer human sexual dimorphism, perhaps even mildly exaggerated. 

 

The Guide to Glorantha clearly indicates that Gloranthan humans are not 1 to 1 the same. Some have different characteristics (colourations - green, blue, red). And so other differences can also be implied.

[Bill the barbarian]

5 hours ago, lordabdul said:

Probably for historical/nostalgia/respect-for-the-original-material reasons. But yes, that's why many groups don't use the "roll the dice" rules for character creation, and instead use house rules -- because players know they want to make a warrior or a thief or a priest or whatever, and they don't want to leave it up to chance to have appropriate scores. That's why CoC has no less than 6 alternate character creation methods (see the Investigator Handbook), and why, most probably, the RQ Gamemaster Guide will have similar options (it's mentioned in RQG that it will have such options).

6 hours ago, styopa said:

Snip

Great stuff Well though out and articulated! I don't even have to agree with you to enjoy that and have it make me think. 

[Shiningbrow]

6 hours ago, styopa said:

I think the "well there's nothing that says gloranthan humans are like earth humans" answer is a bit of handwaving.  There's nothing in the RULES that say gloranthan humans have 10 fingers and toes, or only 2 eyes, or lack a gizzard for grinding seed either, but I think we all assume the human norm anyway.

Again - in Guide to Glorantha, (which seems to be the most canonical source we currently have available), there are clearly some differences between earth humans and Glorantha humans (see p16, for example).

it's not a "handwave" - it's canon.

(personally, my reason for not adjusting the stats is min-maxing... no adjustment means no reason to choose one over the other. Sure, that's not a great reason, but there you have it!)

[The God Learner]

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

The Guide to Glorantha clearly indicates that Gloranthan humans are not 1 to 1 the same. Some have different characteristics (colourations - green, blue, red). And so other differences can also be implied.

Cheers for agreeing with me then? 

[Shiningbrow]

11 minutes ago, The God Learner said:

Cheers for agreeing with me then? 

The "other differences" I meant to imply was that there may be no sexual dimorphism, given there isn't any in the stats.

[Jeff]

6 hours ago, lordabdul said:

Probably for historical/nostalgia/respect-for-the-original-material reasons. But yes, that's why many groups don't use the "roll the dice" rules for character creation, and instead use house rules -- because players know they want to make a warrior or a thief or a priest or whatever, and they don't want to leave it up to chance to have appropriate scores. That's why CoC has no less than 6 alternate character creation methods (see the Investigator Handbook), and why, most probably, the RQ Gamemaster Guide will have similar options (it's mentioned in RQG that it will have such options).

In a purely logical sense, there's not much difference between having different stat rolls for gender and having different stat rolls for species in a fantasy game. However, we don't exist in a pure logical plane of existence, and some things have context and history. There are a whole bunch of other incendiary topics that also fly above my head, so don't feel too bad about it as long as you do recognize that these issues exist (which you seem to). The goal of the GM is to make sure everybody at the table is comfortable and is having fun, after all.

That said, on a purely abstract game design level, making up a character takes several steps that have a specific order. This means that the order between choosing your sex and determining the stats is important. For example, there are some Rune Cults like Eiritha's or Ernalda's which require you to be of a specific gender, which then poses a problem:

• At a table where players have to roll dice for character creation (without any optional/house rule), you roll your stats, and then you know if your character will "look" like a warrior or a shaman or merchant. But if dice rolls are predicated on sex, by the time you know if your character might be a good Ernalda Rune Priestess or not, you already had to pick between male or female! This means that some options are effectively "closed" to the players, and players generally don't like that IME.
• At a table where players are using a house rule that lets them (re)distribute points between stats, or re-roll low dice, or whatever, the whole idea of having dice rolls that have any statistical relevance flies out of the window, so make sure to not mix the two.

Finally, as Jeff pointed out, we should recognize the fact that the point is not to make statistically accurate characters in the first place (we are supposed to play heroes after all!). And even assuming that's what players at your table really consider "fun", then it should start with the elephant in the room: you don't really choose how you're born, so if anything, that house rule should be preceded by a coin flip to determine your sex randomly (and that's already ignoring some "corner" cases of human biology... it should probably be a D100 on a table... also to be followed by another D100 roll on another table to determine your gender! Humans are complicated...).

So anyway, assuming you know for sure nobody at your table will be upset, I'd say you can run your game as you want, but, I think, for that house rule to make sense on a game design level, it would indeed need to be preceded by rolls to determine sex/gender. Have fun!

When I ask players to create characters, I let them pick whatever characteristics that matter to their character concept, and then they often roll dice for stats they don't particularly care about conceptually. 

[The God Learner]

3 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

there may be no sexual dimorphism, given there isn't any in the stats.

Guide to Glorantha doesn't have any stats, does it?