Sexism in Table-Top Gaming: My Thoughts On It, and What We Can Do About It

[Alzrius]

But it is limitation on what kind of character you can have. That's the functional issue, and not something we should forget.

Speaking purely to the broader issue of players having limitations on what kind of character they can have, this isn't something that's universally condemnatory (or at least I don't believe it is). In terms of world-building, what isn't allowed can be just as important as what is, and it's entirely possible to have characters that - whether by game mechanics or role-playing - are disruptive because they go beyond the boundaries set by the GM or the source material.

For example, our GM once announced that his next campaign was going to have a Gothic Horror theme. We were all happy with this, but two of the players had already decided that they really wanted to play tag-team luchador wrestlers, one of which spoke in faux-Spanish, and the other talked like Hulk Hogan. The GM didn't ban their characters, instead trying to work around them, but it caused the tone of the campaign to take a big hit.

This is without getting into the issue that ability scores are the aspect of character generation where players have the least agency, being restricted to random rolls or a limited allocation of points.

 

[billd91]

You are right, penalty or cap it doesn't matter what we call it. My bad on that one. I am not in support of gender based attribute caps just in case it looks like I am.

Under the rules of 1e D&D female humans are limited to an 18/50 and Male humans are limited to an 18/00. There is no character class in the PHB that a female human can not be and does not limit the kinds of characters they can be. There are reasons to not have this rule in the book but I don't think saying it limits the kinds of female human character that can be played is one of them.

Actually it does limit. There's that space between the 18/50 and 18/00 where female human characters cannot go while male characters can and that area includes a substantial amount of mechanical benefit. That slice of characters may not be wide but that ultimately doesn't matter that much - the female character is barred from reaching it while the male is not.

 

[Umbran]

Speaking purely to the broader issue of players having limitations on what kind of character they can have, this isn't something that's universally condemnatory (or at least I don't believe it is). In terms of world-building, what isn't allowed can be just as important as what is, and it's entirely possible to have characters that - whether by game mechanics or role-playing - are disruptive because they go beyond the boundaries set by the GM or the source material.

Okay, so the disruption to the game world is more important than the person at the table? Glad we have that covered.

We aren't talking about some kid who wants to be uber-everything being told, "Sorry, you have to rein it in a bit." It is a woman being told, "In my world, people like you are lacking in these senses..."

Doesn't mean one can't do it. But the question of whether one *should* do it, for that kind of a reason, seems rather less clear - you have to have a pretty awesome artistic vision of a world to do that to someone one hopes is your friend (or customer, if you're a game designer). How many such awesome worlds are going to be trashed by "Female PCs can be strong"?

We aren't even saying the NPC population of women has to exactly match the men. The issue at the moment is of the single female PC. Your world is gonna shatter 'cause she's as strong as a male? Really? That's... a brittle world to build, I think.

 

[Libertad]

Some things I wish to address:

First off, the Strength cap, even if it did originate in the late 1970s of 1st Edition, still carries on. Not just house rules, it almost made it into Hackmaster 5th Edition until women gamers suggested that this wasn't a good idea. And it appeared in an earlier printing of Adventures Dark & Deep.

And although it's not a flat penalty, it will make many gamers think "you know, I should play as a man instead if I'm going to be a Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin/etc." So it does have an effect on people's willingness to play women PCs a lot of the time.

Also, I am not a woman. I just like this avatar.

 

[Alzrius]

Okay, so the disruption to the game world is more important than the person at the table? Glad we have that covered.

Since you've elected to respond with childish sarcasm, allow me to do you the discourtesy of replying in the same vein:

Okay, so one person's enjoying themselves is more important than them ruining the fun of the other people at the table? Glad we have that covered.

We aren't talking about some kid who wants to be uber-everything being told, "Sorry, you have to rein it in a bit." It is a woman being told, "In my world, people like you are lacking in these senses..."

No, we're not. Your post that I quoted was a universal statement in regards to the "functional issue" regarding "the limitations on what kind of character you can have." Furthermore, I said that I was speaking purely in regards to that.

You don't get to make large, sweeping statements and then claim that you were talking about one specific point.

Doesn't mean one can't do it. But the question of whether one *should* do it, for that kind of a reason, seems rather less clear - you have to have a pretty awesome artistic vision of a world to do that to someone one hopes is your friend (or customer, if you're a game designer). How many such awesome worlds are going to be trashed by "Female PCs can be strong"?

We aren't even saying the NPC population of women has to exactly match the men. The issue at the moment is of the single female PC. Your world is gonna shatter 'cause she's as strong as a male? Really? That's... a brittle world to build, I think.

This falls under the same response as above. If you want to talk about issues with sex-specific limitations, then talk about that. But that's not what you were talking about before - you were discussing the issue of limitations on players being able to play what they want, and that's the context in which I responded to you. Now, own it.

 

[Crothian]

First off, the Strength cap, even if it did originate in the late 1970s of 1st Edition, still carries on. Not just house rules, it almost made it into Hackmaster 5th Edition until women gamers suggested that this wasn't a good idea. And it appeared in an earlier printing of Adventures Dark & Deep.

So, it doesn't appear in Hackmaster but did in an early version of a game I've never heard of but does not now since you specified it was an early printing. I'm not seeing what the problem is then as it seems that people are speaking up about it and games are being changed because of it. Sounds like victory to me!

 

[billd91]

Since you've elected to respond with childish sarcasm, allow me to do you the discourtesy of replying in the same vein:

Okay, so one person's enjoying themselves is more important than them ruining the fun of the other people at the table? Glad we have that covered.

Allowing female characters to have equal access to mechanical bonuses derived from their stats ruins the fun for the other people at the table?

 

[Alzrius]

Allowing female characters to have equal access to mechanical bonuses derived from their stats ruins the fun for the other people at the table?

I really have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

Umbran made a statement to the effect that limiting the kind of character that a player can make is undesirable; this had no particular qualifiers attached to it, making the statement universal in nature. I pointed out - specifically mentioning that that was the issue I was speaking to - that this wasn't always true, since being able to make any kind of player you want without restrictions can, unto itself, result in disruptions.

The question of if player agency should be limited - and if so, to what degree - when designing their character is what I'm discussing there; not the issue of sexism in gaming. (One can say that this is a tangent to the original theme of the thread, and this is true; but that's part of the nature of discussion threads is that the original topic can branch out over the course of the discussion.)

 

[Libertad]

It is a victory, but people still try and slip it in now and again.

1.) But let's not sit here and pretend this is about realism or sensitivity to peoples feelings. You've got a whole laundry list of things you are complaining about and insisting that gamers conform to even to the extent that you seem to be saying that they can't be portrayed in a negative way, and that single 'incidents' while not as worthy of scorn are still at least a little worthy of scorn. You've managed to get more Puritanical than a guy whose been accused of being a prude. And by dodging around saying this is about being respectful and sensitive, you completely avoid the main thrust of my complaint which is that there is nothing at all nuanced, sensitive or respectful in the way you are viewing women or men.

How? Again and again on message boards and in media I hear of women gamers talked down to for expressing disagreement with chainmail bikinis, saw lackadaisical attitude towards sexual assault which can trigger flashbacks in sufferers (of which there are many), and cosplayers repeatedly sexually harassed and groped at gaming conventions. If I were being Puritannical I'd be advocating for no mention of sex, period, and shaming the women for "tempting" men.

In any event, while for various reasons neither sex nor rape are major themes in my gaming, for the very reasons that its reasonably common (the exact numbers being a matter of controversy but certainly we agree 'too often') in the real world and is a very serious subject its also going to exist in at least the background of my world. I don't really intend to limit my campaign to your review or censure.

But it's not about individual home games. If you feel that you and your group can handle sexual assault without problems, I'm not stopping you. But given the huge amount of people who suffer from it and are likely to get triggered when it's introduced in a gaming session I say that it's best to err on the side of caution and to not use it unless you're REALLY, REALLY SURE that nobody at your table will be affected.

Chasing your links and your links' links leads to either to things that aren't what you say they are, or else a bunch of increasingly less than credible claims by persons who are clearly biased to accept anything that backs their desired conclusions. Casually chasing a handful debunked many of them with minutes. So I can't tell with certainty what is true or not, but I do know that on the basis of those links I wouldn't be nearly as dramatic and confrontational about the evidence as you are: it seems pretty weak, and if I really was undecided on this point and not you know married to a woman with PhD that can out run me, I'd be 'point to the chauvinists' after browsing your links.

Okay, if my links do not help my argument and are counter to what I said, then I'll concede the mistake. But first I need to specifically know their factual fallacies, what they are and where.

 

[Kursk]

I have seen strength caps discussed and the DM who want them for a sense of realism don't seem to get why a lot of female players resent them. I do and I will walk out of any game with them.

That's the beauty of a free society. Freedom of association. That's the best way to deal with something one doesn't like.