dtgreene: Here is the problem: In the Gold Box games, there is nothing given to female characters to compensate for the loss in strength (and I note that only strength is affected by being female). (Also, the rule actually comes from 1e AD&D, and was removed in 2e, as it was generally considered to be a mistake (and SSI games based on 2e don't use this rule).)
The way I see it, the most fair approach is to give female characters the same stats and abilities as male characters, making the decision purely cosmetic (which is what most players are expecting). If differentiation is desired, the two choices should be balanced, rather than one being superior to the other. (Also, I would advice against having male characters get no modifiers; instead of, say, giving females -1 Str and +1 Dex (for example), give males +1 Str and females +1 Dex; that avoids the "male as default" issue.)
The Elder Scrolls games handle gender differences decently for the most part (aside from the fact that, in TES: Arena, male Dark Elves are overpowered compared to other options and are strictly better than females of that race).
AD&D games based on 2nd edition or later take the best approach; no modifiers for either sex. Also, the Ultima series up through VII (but not VIII and IX, which force you to play a male character) also takes that approach (and Ultima even has a 3rd gender option).
One more thing: Just because something is realistic does not make it a good gameplay mechanic. Mechanics that force the PCs to eat tend to be more annoying than fun, as are having to worry about weapon durability and ammo for weapons that are not strong enough to warrant such limiting factors (particularly when there are strong weapons that aren't affected by such mechanics).
Edit: In the SSI Gold Box games, some players do hack around the racial level limits that make non-human characters useless in the later games.
I extra only concentrated on the Gold series otherwise a never-ending story and also different thinking behind ;)
I do not remember SSI using another rule set, do you have examples there?
I think why it was implemented in the first place (gender difference) was to get at least a little bit real life feeling into the games. (they did sway IIRC from some aspects of the rules anyway) And yes they could have handled it in another way, I always was expecting also slightly different role-checks and similar in the games, but there SSI only used the gender neutral way (i.e. a female character doing Fast Talk/convince onto opposite sex or distract was always the same). So out of this, it would have made more sense to have no + or - for any gender.
Adding positive stats to a gender? hmmm... outcome would be still the same and only cosmetic, or? (don't really see a difference there, just changing the base line, but not the outcome)
Offsetting the malus: As shortly described above, I think if they would have implemented certain checks/quests and similar more based on gender, THAT would have been better, me thinks.(hiding in shadows, disguise to name a few and better fitting with role-playing and also making other races more 'useful'). Not saying that there were never Walkuere/Valkyrie like ones around though ;)
Just the way how the Gold box games were done, yes it doesn't really make any difference for the RPG part for the gender, hence they could have dropped it all complete and just keep it cosmetic.
About realistic: It really depends on what the devs want to achieve. Do you know Xenomorph? Talking about PC eating/drinking? Or burntime? If you do know those games, it really made sense there. Agreed that quite a lot of games it is just grinding and not really RPG.
