In regards to the settings, I would agree with the OP that very few of the settings stand up to scrutily with regard to numbers of sentient species and top level predators. I cannot imagine that Elves/Eladrin could have reproduction biology resembling humans or the world would be buried under the weight of starving elves.
Nice image!
Other than that, it will be as sexist as the society that create it. There is so much of our daily assumption that we do not question and that will be reflected in the campaigns we create, unless someone calls us on it.
This also applies to the gamer culture in general also.
True. Which is why I'm calling
In most settings (published & homebrew), it's taken that (most) 'humans' are essentially identical to real world humans, sexual dimorphism and all.
I agree that it seems to be so. Obviously, I have some issues with that. And I think it's especially amusing (though I understand why it exists) when that gets applied to non-human fantasy species to, which it often/usually does.
There are exceptions, like the Wilderlands' Amazons, but the base line human is a human much like those of the real world. Basing arguments on rules for generating PCs is a complete red herring IMO. There are good metagame reasons for not imposing Strength penalties on female PCs. They have nothing to do with non-heroic female NPCs, who are normally assumed to have similar strength to real-world human females; likewise human males.
Fair enough. We'll have to differ about the red herring angle, since I think the fact that female PCs (and many NPCs, for that matter) can have exactly the same stats (physical and mental) as any male PCs is relevant.
Well, it's neither here nor there, but I'd suggest you have another look. I find the opposite to be true. Without moderation to hide behind, people are more responsible for what they say. There are some real douchey comments from real douchey people from time to time, but since everyone is free to call them on their douchiness, that's the minority. The climate at Circvs Maximvs actually is more conducive to polite and well-reasoned discussion than here in many ways. At least in my opinion.
Okay. Maybe I'll take a look at it another time, but I'm not putting money on it, more due to time issues than anything else.
Although you do have to be prepared for the occasional unexpected wild ride from time to time.
So I noticed
Because it's easier that way. Like I brought up in another thread about why people expect some form of realism (in that case physical realism) in their games, it's easiest to handle game settings as an exercise in exception, by describing where it's different from what we know and understand, than by construction.
We all have experience with a variety of modern social relationships, we all have some familiarity with past ones via our knowledge of history, portrayals in historical media, portrayals adapted into modern media, and the modern products of those past relationships. Structuring a campaign setting with all sorts of alternative social relationships takes a lot of hard work, particularly when these alternatives are probably going to be filtered through the brain as comparisons with the ones we already know anyway.
That's a reasonable and very plausible explanation. And I understand the reasons which you listed, even though I may sometimes decry the end results.
What I meant was that if sexism is not counter to a good life as a human, then it should not be argued against or decried. If it's biological in origin, and not harmful to life, then it should not only be accepted but exploited.
I personally think - and find, in my experience - that sexism tends to be pretty harmful to a good life. And by sexism I specifically mean when one treats someone not as an individual but rather as a member of a particular group and assumes certain things about them on that basis.
For instance, schools can do very well to consider sex trends in their organization, curricula, and pedagogy. Arguing that differences between boys and girls, on average, can be socialized out of existence is very harmful to our boys and girls. That goes for D&D and RPGs, too: arguing that differences between men and women are only social (despite strong evidence to the contrary) can only hurt the game and limit its audience.
I obviously differ with you about the strong evidence, since I think the social and cultural differences heavily supersede and mediate any biological ones. Also, since we - as human beings - are constantly overriding and mediating our biology in order to go about our day-to-day lives, I also have some issues with heavy emphasis on gender as the determinant of individual identity. And, to tie it back to the issue of gaming again, especially so when it comes to an individual playing a game which is essentially about the imagination.
If you are going to deal with issues of sexism in game, I would first be really, really up front with your players on it. I'm a huge believer in groups sitting down, before character generation, before play, and discussing and hashing out elements that they all would like to see in the game. The buy in for the campaign tends to work better when everyone is singing from the same page (or at least humming along).
Sexism, like any other real world issue, can get people pissed off. And that's not something you probably want at your gaming table. You have to know your players for this to work. If you are going to, for example, explore the idea that women are X (whether that be exploited, or on top matriarchy, or whatever), then make sure your players are groovy with this in the game. If they're not on board, your game's going to die a painful death, so, you might as well know up front.
Good point. And, as you said, this is just a good idea in general. Making sure everyone is on the same page helps a lot.
Now, personally, I think the issue should be dealt with at a more community level. Individual games can certainly do what they can, but, I think it does help the hobby in general if we are more supportive of any trend that expands the hobby. To be 100% honest here, this has nothing to do with altruism and everything to do with wanting the hobby to be so culturally accepted and ingrained that it's perfectly mainstream. That being able to find a tabletop group anywhere, anytime, is no more difficult than finding a local team to join. If that means making some efforts to open things up to women, hey, I'm all for it.
I appreciate the honesty. My primary aim, personally, is much more about just being equally accepting and inclusive to different people and less about improving the cultural acceptance of the hobby. But I do think that making D&D less of a boy's club would be a good move to that end.
I'm not entirely sure how to do that, although, perhaps smacking the guy oggling the breasts of the girl who happened to come into the FLGS is a damn good start.
Good move. A lot of the time I think the issue with sexism in the community is not so much about people being sexist themselves, but simply not saying anything when other people are. Which, while arguably not being as poor a form of behavior, certainly does allow the behavior to continue and perhaps flourish.
Someone find the quote in the original D&D set referring to "women's lib" . . .
Is there one? This promises to be hilarious.
Like Mallus, I'm very interested to hear it.
