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

[Hammerforge]

Also, the suggested strength cap in 1E, mentioned in the OP, is really an imposition of a modern situation and worldview on a fantasy medieval setting. D&D, as we all know, is patterned after medieval Europe. In such a society, women were not weightlifters, and although they did plenty of physical work, it's not safe to say that they were as strong as men. There may have been rare exceptions, but making an exception the norm is wrong.

 

[Morrus]

Also, the suggested strength cap in 1E, mentioned in the OP, is really an imposition of a modern situation and worldview on a fantasy medieval setting. D&D, as we all know, is patterned after medieval Europe. In such a society, women were not weightlifters, and although they did plenty of physical work, it's not safe to say that they were as strong as men. There may have been rare exceptions, but making an exception the norm is wrong.

D&D is a fantasy world of magic and dragons and elves. It's not a simulation of medieval Europe. If you want a medieval Europe simulator, you'll need a different game.

If someone were to pick and choose bits of medieval Europe to adopt in their game, and of all the things they could choose - like "no elves" or "civilizations not shaped by magic" or "general drudgery" - the thing they picked was "strength caps for women" I'd definitely be curious as to why.

 

[Celebrim]

D&D is a fantasy world of magic and dragons and elves.

Usually.

It's not a simulation of medieval Europe. If you want a medieval Europe simulator, you'll need a different game.

No, you don't. This quickly approaches claims that the person is having 'badwrongfun' if he wants to use D&D to run a game set in the Roman Republic, bronze age Judea, or a game set in Tekumel, or a game set in the Ice Ages were only stone tools are available, or D&D as a steampunk game inspired by the Firefly TV show, or D&D in Shoganate Japan, or D&D as a horror game in a qausi-Victorian era. Could other game systems do a better job? Maybe. That's a matter of opinion. D&D however, and particular D&D stripped to its D20 core, can do the job and we I think have little right to tell the DM, "Your game must have elves and dragons" or "Your game must be set in a particular fantasy world or its not D&D."

Some of the campaigns that EnWorld posters most fondly remember weren't trope fantasy worlds.

But more to the point, the problem of sexism isn't something we need to address merely in dungeons and dragons, but in any game it could turn up in. If it is invariably true that mechanical differences between men and women is sexist, then our justification for saying that can't be, "Well dragons exist, so why are you insisting on 'realism' in portraying the sexes?"

If someone were to pick and choose bits of medieval Europe to adopt in their game, and of all the things they could choose - like "no elves" or "civilizations not shaped by magic" or "general drudgery" - the thing they picked was "strength caps for women" I'd definitely be curious as to why.

If that was the only thing they choose, it might seem pretty salient to me as well. But this dodges the point I raised earlier. What if the DM in question was not chose just one bit or another, but had clearly spent great effort to make a particular setting evocative and simulationist - be it 16th century Europe or 16th century Japan. Is what we are ultimately saying is that it is badwrongfun to have a setting which lacks the egalitarianism, cosmopolitanism, and progressive politics of modern America? I have a campaign that is entirely set within goblin society. The goblins as I have portrayed them are highly sexist beings that do see females only as having value as baby making machines. Roles for independent females within that society are limited, and female characters face great discrimination. Rape is considered a normal aspect of society and not really frowned upon. Without going into the campaign secrets, I believe that ultimately the issues I'm addressing in this 'anti-campaign' (with the players starting out in the role of traditional D&D villains) are worthy of exploration. Are we suggesting that my goblin campaign must be censured for fear that it might make women uncomfortable and that it is not only badwrongfun but entirely immoral and worthy of scorn?

 

[Morrus]

No, you don't. This quickly approaches claims that the person is having 'badwrongfun' if he wants to use D&D to run a game set in the Roman Republic,

You're adding that yourself. I never said that. I said default D&D wasn't - as claimed - medieval Europe.

n. D&D however, and particular D&D stripped to its D20 core, can do the job

Nobody said it couldn't. Again, you're adding stuff from your own mind; that didn't come from me. I was just responding to someone who told us D&D was medieval Europe.

and we I think have little right to tell the DM, "Your game must have elves and dragons" or "Your game must be set in a particular fantasy world or its not D&D."

And I didn't say that, either. I said that D&D wasn't medieval Europe.

What your campaign has in it is your business, but pronouncing that D&D is medieval Europe just flat-out isn't true. You'd have to make it medieval Europe.

But more to the point, the problem of sexism isn't something we need to address merely in dungeons and dragons, but in any game it could turn up in.

Obviously. That, and many other things, are true. As it happens, though, I was replying to a post about D&D being medieval Europe.

Is what we are ultimately saying is that it is badwrongfun to have a setting which lacks the egalitarianism, cosmopolitanism, and progressive politics of modern America? I have a campaign that is entirely set within goblin society. The goblins as I have portrayed them are highly sexist beings that do see females only as having value as baby making machines. Roles for independent females within that society are limited, and female characters face great discrimination. Rape is considered a normal aspect of society and not really frowned upon. Without going into the campaign secrets, I believe that ultimately the issues I'm addressing in this 'anti-campaign' (with the players starting out in the role of traditional D&D villains) are worthy of exploration. Are we suggesting that my goblin campaign must be censured for fear that it might make women uncomfortable and that it is not only badwrongfun but entirely immoral and worthy of scorn?

Who's the "we" you're addressing there? Me? You were replying to my post. No, when I say "D&D is not medieval Europe" I am not suggesting any of those things.

I think you've conjured quite an epic narrative out of my opining that D&D isn't medieval Europe. For the record, the only conclusion to extrapolate from that post is that D&D isn't medieval Europe.

Just to be clear - my post said that D&D isn't medieval Europe.

What your campaign setting is is your business. But equally, you can't pronounce "D&D is playing evil goblins in a vast multicultural space empire spanning all of space and time". The very best you can say is that your campaign is.

 

[Mallus]

D&D, as we all know, is patterned after medieval Europe.

Yes, a medieval Europe awash in hobbits, remarkable plentiful gold coins, wizards, and carnivorous Jello cubes. Tres accurate!

There may have been rare exceptions, but making an exception the norm is wrong.

The norm for PC adventurers. It's an important distinction.

PCs start out as exceptions, especially in older version of D&D which don't have NPC class/leveling mechanics. There the 'norm' is "you're a 0 level human forever, deal with it". Acquisition of HPs is pretty clearly "exceptional" and also the norm for PCs.

This invites the question: why is 'realism' important when dealing with men's strength relative to women, but no so important elsewhere in the system?

I mean, put whatever you want in your campaigns, but don't pretend it's realistic or logical when it's obviously not.

 

[technoextreme]

Geekdom in general is currently a very nebulous subculture, in part because a lot of its common elements (Sci-Fi and Fantasy) are now part of the mainstream.

I hated fantasy for the longest of times and sci-fi wasn't something that I was really ecstatic with. And yet my geeky activities make anything that you guys could ever come up with pale in comparison. Its really one of the annoying things about that term because the only examples that ever seem to arise are watching television and reading books which isn't the be all end all of geekiness.

Also, the suggested strength cap in 1E, mentioned in the OP, is really an imposition of a modern situation and worldview on a fantasy medieval setting. D&D, as we all know, is patterned after medieval Europe. In such a society, women were not weightlifters, and although they did plenty of physical work, it's not safe to say that they were as strong as men. There may have been rare exceptions, but making an exception the norm is wrong.

You do realize that the exception is what you are trying to pass off as the norm. Women combatants were incredibly common throughout history.
EDIT:
Hell even gender conventions weren't even exactly set in stone either.

 

[Hammerforge]

D&D is a fantasy world of magic and dragons and elves. It's not a simulation of medieval Europe. If you want a medieval Europe simulator, you'll need a different game.

I didn't say it was a simulation of medieval Europe in terms of being exactly like it. I said it was patterned after it. It is markedly similar to medieval Europe in many respects and was not meant to mirror contemporary worldviews. Sorry, I disagree.

 

[Hammerforge]

Yes, a medieval Europe awash in hobbits, remarkable plentiful gold coins, wizards, and carnivorous Jello cubes. Tres accurate!

Of course there are fantasy elements, but that does not lessen what I said. It was intended to have elements of medieval Europe with fantasy elements mixed in. That says nothing about modern worldviews imposed on it.

The norm for PC adventurers. It's an important distinction.

Yes, adventurers who are products of their society and culture, so that brings us back to the original question rather than getting us anywhere: What are the attitudes of that society? That, of course, is up to each DM/GM, but my point was that it's silly to expect a ruleset (1E) to reflect a 21st-century mind-set when it was not meant to do so.

And yes, PCs are exceptional, but they still had many weaknesses and limitations, at least in 1E. They were a cut above the rest, but that is far from justifying the imposition of a modern worldview. Sorry, my point still stands.

 

[billd91]

This invites the question: why is 'realism' important when dealing with men's strength relative to women, but no so important elsewhere in the system?

I mean, put whatever you want in your campaigns, but don't pretend it's realistic or logical when it's obviously not.

I'd characterize questions about strength penalties/caps on female characters a bit differently. Attacking the realism when there are unrealistic elements of the game just opens the door to a lot complaints. "Why should crossbows suck so much compared to longbows because of their reload times?" "Why shouldn't my unarmored guy have a worse AC than the guy in full plate?" and so on. Certain sops to realism make the game better and more immersive.

The question I have is "Is the 'realism' when dealing with men's strength relative women's so important when it negatively affects a sizable segment of the gaming population?" To its credit, D&D answered this question back in 1989 by getting rid of the strength cap.

 

[Nellisir]

D&D, as we all know, is patterned after medieval Europe. In such a society, women were not weightlifters, and although they did plenty of physical work, it's not safe to say that they were as strong as men.

I'm pretty sure a medieval laundress would kick my ass in an arm wrestling competition.

(Edit: and no, I don't lift weights or work out. I'm self-employed in construction. Another carpenter and I were discussing this last week. The sheer amount of physical labor that was necessary before electricity is staggering. I can't imagine cutting boards, beams, and posts all day with a handsaw - or rather, I can, and it hurts.)