D&D 5E Honor & Sanity

[GMforPowergamers]

wow, having played 2e I never saw or somehow forgot that rule... and I never knew gary was such a jerk

 

[Hriston]

You betray yourself by saying it is a penalty. It's not a penalty, it's a reflection of certain characteristics. Halflings aren't as strong as a human man. That's not a penalty, it's just a game mechanic to reflect a difference in physique. Human women are more often than not, not as strong as human men. Again it is a game mechanic looking to reflect a difference in physique. This is different than 'giving women a hard time'.

I don't think it reflects reality. This is like saying that out of the top 32 million strongest people in the world, not one of them is female.

 

[halfling rogue]

You betray yourself by being a dishonest human being.

The reduction of a number on the character sheet that automatically results in the character having a smaller chance of success on rolls has ALWAYS and will ALWAYS be a "penalty". And I am willing to bet that in every single other instance YOU refer to it as a penalty.

I have every single confidence that in such editions when your character was poisoned and your character's Strength and Constitution were reduced by 1d6 points, you were not leaping for joy and exclaiming "YAY!! A -3 Strength and Constitution BONUS!!"

No. You didn't. You can cut the disingenuous crap right there. It is a penalty. It has ALWAYS been a penalty. And you call it so when you aren't being a bald-faced liar.

For the -1 Strength PENALTY, Halflings received a +1 Dexterity Bonus. And, yes, this reflected that Halflings were the size of children-- weighting only a third of the weight of an average adult human.

The difference in size between men and women is NO WHERE near that extreme. Not even remotely close. Even if you were to argue a 10% or even 20% average difference in strength, that is no where near the difference between a full adult human and a 7-year old child as we are talking about with the Halfling.

Moreover, that PENALTY that applied to ALL FEMALE CHARACTERS. REGARDLESS OF RACE, mind you, did not come with any off-setting bonus. None. Zip. ZERO. It was just flat out slap-in-the-face penalty for daring to play as a female in a game designed by men for men for the pleasure of men. Women were nothing more than prostitutes or wives-- as reflected in pretty much every single random NPC table in every single AD&D Sourcebook or Adventure where you were likely to see 3 different types of prostitutes as likely types of female NPCs that could be encountered.

That -1 Strength meant that no female Fighter could ever be a decent Fighter by 2nd edition where to be a good Fighter you first had to have an 18 and then roll a 1d100 in order to get to those elite categories. Of course... as a Fighter... you were worthless trash by level 10 anyway (which was at least better than a Rogue who was worthless trash at level 1 and never got better), but without that starting requisite 18, you weren't going to contribute much.

Now, I suppose a dishonest person like you could argue that a female player could always play a male character. After all, the PENALTY, as you would call it if you weren't dishonest, only applied to female CHARACTERS and not female PLAYERS. But it still said much about about views of women. The applied penalty is a very clear message that females are inferior living creatures that have absolutely no positive traits or advantages whatsoever. The best they can ever be is a weaker version of exactly what a male is.

No honest person can misinterpret that. It was what it was and had nothing to do with reflecting reality.

For you folks who pride yourselves on being a part of a community that claims to be tolerant and inclusive, you all sure do have a way of bringing it about. I've been called a sexist and a bald-faced liar in this thread. That's some serious stuff. I don't know if the facelessness of the internet emboldens folks like you to be more free with personal insults or if you're just so drunk on the PC koolaid that you can't engage in semi-intelligent conversation without being belligerent.

Listen, if you think it's a penalty, then by all means, don't let me stop you from thinking it. I only brought it up because you interpreted it as a penalty and then acted as if that was what Gygax wrote in stone. I'm just throwing it out there that there could be another side to the story. It doesn't have to be interpreted as a penalty, and I don't interpret it as a penalty. If you think that makes me a sexist then, brother, there's not a whole lot else we can discuss. (can I call you brother? Is it insensitive to refer to you on the basis of your gender?)

 

[halfling rogue]

I don't think it reflects reality. This is like saying that out of the top 32 million strongest people in the world, not one of them is female.

I'm not sure where you pulled that number, or what kind of point you are trying to make. I'm not saying a woman cannot be stronger than a man. But if you want to replicate physical differences into a game mechanic (which is apparently what Gygax was doing) then why wouldn't you recognize that women are different than men physically?

In reality, are women more often physically weaker, stronger, or on par with men? I'm not saying Gygax should/shouldn't have done it. I'm just saying I can see why he did it (and why I wouldn't interpret it as a penalty). To tell the truth, in any game I've ever been in with female characters, there has been no mechanic used that has reflected a physical difference and neither I nor anyone else in my groups have ever even thought about it. This thread represents the first time my brain has ever even thought once about this subject in D&D.

 

[Hriston]

I'm not sure where you pulled that number, or what kind of point you are trying to make. I'm not saying a woman cannot be stronger than a man. But if you want to replicate physical differences into a game mechanic (which is apparently what Gygax was doing) then why wouldn't you recognize that women are different than men physically?

In reality, are women more often physically weaker, stronger, or on par with men? I'm not saying Gygax should/shouldn't have done it. I'm just saying I can see why he did it (and why I wouldn't interpret it as a penalty). To tell the truth, in any game I've ever been in with female characters, there has been no mechanic used that has reflected a physical difference and neither I nor anyone else in my groups have ever even thought about it. This thread represents the first time my brain has ever even thought once about this subject in D&D.

Chance of rolling an 18 on 3d6: 1/216 or around 0.5%
0.5% of 7 billion = around 32 million (number of people today who would statistically have a Strength, or any other stat, of 18.

The above mentioned mechanic with regard to female characters would exclude them from this group. I understand what Gygax was trying to do too, but this seems like a poor way to do it, and I don't understand why he thought the game needed it since it prevents female characters from performing at the highest levels of the fighter class, in essence limiting players' choices.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Some elements of Dragonlance make me a little squicky even now (sigh, comic relief races).

And the gender dynamics are one of the reasons that I've got little interest in ever actually playing a Pendragon game. I've no desire to emulate a genre predicated on those tropes. I know too many people and too many instances where those tropes have caused real damage to real people for me to have fun playing make-believe in a world that makes extensive use of them.

Agree with pretty much all of this. It's why I tossed in the "and if all your players are on board with it" caveat.

On the other hand, if a game or book actually is racist or sexist, as opposed to simply including cultures or characters that are, a specific group of people being okay with it doesn't change anything.

There's some room for interpretation on exactly where the line between the two falls, I admit. But that's "some," not "infinite." And I'm constantly shocked at how often people throw out the "It's tradition!" justification, when the fact is it's precisely those period/cultural traditions that caused the problem in the first place.

 

[aramis erak]

are you now insinuating Gary would have given a woman player a hard time if she was a fighter?!?!!?

Just read his comments in SR, the first few dragons, and AD&D 1E... It's not insinuation, it's pretty explicit that Gary didn't much expect female players.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Just read his comments in SR, the first few dragons, and AD&D 1E... It's not insinuation, it's pretty explicit that Gary didn't much expect female players.

I thank you then, this totally changes my view on a man I thought I new about. A man until today I had nothing but respect for...

 

[MechaPilot]

Chance of rolling an 18 on 3d6: 1/216 or around 0.5%
0.5% of 7 billion = around 32 million (number of people today who would statistically have a Strength, or any other stat, of 18.

The above mentioned mechanic with regard to female characters would exclude them from this group. I understand what Gygax was trying to do too, but this seems like a poor way to do it, and I don't understand why he thought the game needed it since it prevents female characters from performing at the highest levels of the fighter class, in essence limiting players' choices.

I don't think player choice with regard to character building was a huge deal back then. With races being their own classes early on, racial class restrictions, ability score requirements, and alignment requirements in place there was certainly plenty that restricted choice if the dice weren't friendly, you wanted to play a specific race, or you wanted to play a certain alignment.

 

[MechaPilot]

Just read his comments in SR, the first few dragons, and AD&D 1E... It's not insinuation, it's pretty explicit that Gary didn't much expect female players.

What is SR?