I don't think this has ever been true. I've read accounts of cross-gender PCs going back at least to the late 70s.
There were no sex-based penalties in the original 3 books (as best I recall), but STR limits for female characters were part of AD&D.
D&D 5E After 2 years the 5E PHB remains one of the best selling books on Amazon
- Thread starter TerraDave
- Start date
- Status
abirdcall
(she/her)
There was no option for it. The rule book just said your character was the same gender as you. It doesn't mean that people didn't do it anyway. There was also a cursed item that switched the character's gender.
You don't consider having your strength lowered because you are playing a female character a penalty?
Okay...
Anyway, here is one article (of many) which explains why and how D&D 5e has become more friendly to people other than straight white men.
http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/dungeons-and-dragons-has-caught-up-with-third-wave-feminism-827
Last edited:
flametitan
Explorer
I think they were referring to the 1974 LBBs when they made that comment, which last I checked don't have the STR penalty (admittedly, they don't have much of anything, so make that as you will). AD&D has the penalties, but not od&d.
Well, the article is full of agression and derogative terms toward males and roleplayers, thank you.
"Hey, did you know that D&D isn't played just by unattractive women? Fair-looking girls with plenty of social life play it too! Even celebrities, like XY metal diva!"
Does it sound good? No? I thought so.
But.
It depends on how much "realistic" you want the game to be? IF you want more realism, women should not be penalized in str, but should have a lower str cap than men, in the upper echelons (like 18+, which is the highest humanly possible - sorry, but watch any lifting sport), because that's just biology. However women should have higher caps in con, or dex, I think or higher starting numbers in those.
Just as fantasy races aren't equal in everything, all have their strengths and weaknesses, real world sexes too.
You could say that said fantasy races, like dwarves, or elves, or half-orcs don't have these sexual dimorphism, just as not every animal species have them. Some do, some don't. You also could say, that in this fantasy world, humans don't have this either. It's perfectly okay.
I also think it should not restrict any character concepts, because fighting has many variables and strength helps, but it's far, far from everything and weapons are great equalizers, but D&D doesn't really handling this well, especially 5e, where your ability score is far the most important factor. But yeah, ReD Sonja would still have a harder time lifting the fallen column from his comrade than Conan, because, while both are pure muscle and at the peak of human physicality, Conan is still has 20+ kilogramms of more pure muscle. Although she might have a very even footing against Conan in a sword-fight, even having other possible advantages over him.
Or, Brienne of Tarth might be even in strength with the hound, or Brom, or Jamie or even stronger than some of them, but she certainly isn't on par with the Mountain. If 20 is the natural highest, I'll stat Brienn and the former guys around 17-18, because they are strong and accostumed to fighting, riding wearing armour and so. I'll stat the Mountain at 20, or even 21-22, because he's somewhat an abomination a little bit, so I'll give him a feat for that, or something.
But honestly? Why bother with it? Unnecessary complication of the rules with the potential of angering people like you apparently. Just lump humans together and call it a day, everyone's happy. But sorry, it's nothing new to 5e, as i recall it has been this way at least since 2000, since 3e.
I think more girls and women playing D&D exactly because of the reason why generally more people playing D&D lately. It got more mainstream recognition because of the success of IPs like GoT and the myriad historical dramas and movies, like LotR and Hobbit and PotC and so on. Fantasy and swords are cool now. The historical swordfighting movement experienced the same surge. Also, geek subculture is hip and cool now, so the whole hobby is considered less as a stinky nerd neckbeards in the basement with no lives thing just as many other aspects of geekness. Just as Vampire did hit the zeitgeist of the 90's and I have to say there were (are?) as many girls than guys in the local Vampire LARP community, even among the organizers.
On the flipside, I could relate to the notion, that mainly illustration-wise the older books were fairly sexist, but i think it's a chicken or egg question which was first, the change of this or the surge of interest from women? And the older books were the products of their age, where everything looked that way, book covers, musical album covers, movie posters and I don't want to talk about comics.
Please consider the slight chance that maybe, just maybe, not everything is about, or because of, or in the sake of progressive/radical gender ideology or 3rd wave feminism, or other liberal thoughts. I say this as an honestly liberal guy, who hates the "girls go back to the kitchen" and other
and who stress equality, equal rights and chances between all kind of people and who believes in women could be anything they want. I just don't like, when anger and the rightful desire for equality overrides facts and commons sense and colors basically every-ing-thing.
Last edited:
dagger
Adventurer
Love me some AD&D with str limits for females....we still play it, but I am a straight white man. I just checked....no limits on gender you can play that I can find.
Also, we never used STR limits for female PC characters, and still don't. Mostly because no one remembers to do it, but I dont have any issue with it.
I just read that article and it is terrible btw.
Last edited:
Also, let's take a look at other editions:
3e PHB: the iconic monk is a black woman, the paladin is also a woman (I'm not sure which ethnicity she could be but she's not caucasian white), the sorcerer is an Asian-esque man (and in very fetish-like gear), the druid is an half-elf woman, rogue is a halfling woman, wizard is an elf woman. There's 7 iconic male characters (fighters have two, a dwarf and a human) and 5 female.
Pathfinder PHB: the cleric is a middle-easter-like woman, the barbarian is a woman (I'm not sure Kellids have any strict real-world alternatives, but they're not archetypical western), the druid is a gnome woman, monk is a black man, paladin is a black woman, rogue is an elf woman, sorcerer is a woman (again, Varisians, I1m not sure, but they're somewhat Romany-like). There' 6 female iconic and 5 male.
5e didn't invented anything new on this.
3e PHB: the iconic monk is a black woman, the paladin is also a woman (I'm not sure which ethnicity she could be but she's not caucasian white), the sorcerer is an Asian-esque man (and in very fetish-like gear), the druid is an half-elf woman, rogue is a halfling woman, wizard is an elf woman. There's 7 iconic male characters (fighters have two, a dwarf and a human) and 5 female.
Pathfinder PHB: the cleric is a middle-easter-like woman, the barbarian is a woman (I'm not sure Kellids have any strict real-world alternatives, but they're not archetypical western), the druid is a gnome woman, monk is a black man, paladin is a black woman, rogue is an elf woman, sorcerer is a woman (again, Varisians, I1m not sure, but they're somewhat Romany-like). There' 6 female iconic and 5 male.
5e didn't invented anything new on this.
Why do you love it if you never use it?
abirdcall
(she/her)
This discussion showcases how far we still need to go.
Still, it remains that 5e is the most welcoming edition for people who aren't men that we have ever had. It shows in the numbers.
It's also just nice to be able to show all of my friends what I do in my spare time, and even invite them to play, without being ashamed.
Still, it remains that 5e is the most welcoming edition for people who aren't men that we have ever had. It shows in the numbers.
It's also just nice to be able to show all of my friends what I do in my spare time, and even invite them to play, without being ashamed.
Which rulebook? Not the Moldvay Basic book or the AD&D PHBs. And not the original books, as best I recall.
All I could find in the 1st ed AD&D PHB about character sex is this, on p 7:
Although the masculine form of appellation is typically used when listing the level titles of the various types of characters, these names can easily be changed to the feminine if desired. This is fantasy - what's in a name? In all but a few cases sex makes no difference to ability!
(The difference that sex makes is to max STR score.)
Moldvay Basic makes it clear that the player chooses his/her PC's sex, with this on page B13, in the example of PC creation:
The player is female and decides that her character will also be female.
The 2nd ed AD&D PHB, on p 23, says
The sex and name of your charter are up to you. Your character can be of the same sex as yourself or of the opposite sex.
This was not a rules change. It was a statement of the already-extent state of affairs.
Writing in 1982 (and using as their touchstones Moldvay Basic and the AD&D PHB), the authors of "What is Dungeons & Dragons" (a book published by Puffin, which is a junior imprint of Penguin, and hence a book more influential in British than American cultural circles - in my case, I encountered it in Australian libraries) wrote (p 23):
Playing a character of the opposite sex to one's own is perfectly permissible in D&D; the choice is entirely up to the player.
And from another RPG, but indicative of the general understanding of the times, Traveller Book 1 (1977, p 8) has "A Note on Gender and Race":
Nowhere in these rules is a specific requirement established that any character (player or non-player) be of a specific gender or race. Any character is potentially of any race or of either sex.
What rulebook do you have in mind?
There was no lowering of STR. The max STR score was lower for female than male characters, but there was no lowering of scores.
What point are you trying to make? I'm not defending the 1st ed AD&D STR rules - like many people, I consider them silly at best and offensive at worst.
I'm just trying to be accurate. When you referred to a penalty to a stat, or a lowering of a stat, I assume you mean a mechanical adjustment (eg elves have -1 to CON; halflings -1 to STR; etc). This is not the same as a max stat cap (eg dwarves in AD&D have a max 17 DEX, but no DEX penalty).
I've read plenty of these articles, and participated in the relevant thread. I don't need instruction on the sex or gender politics of RPGing.
As I said, I'm just trying to be accurate. And on the particular issue of what gender a PC is, the early D&D rulebooks had nothing to say, and certainly did not stipulate that the PC's sex and/or gender was the same as the players.
(And while we're on the sexual and gender politics of D&D rulebooks, I think it's also worth noting that the AD&D DMG and PHB use "he or she" quite consistently. The reversion to masculine-only pronouns was a 2nd ed AD&D thing. This change coincides with a whole lot of other trends in the hobby, including the move from AD&D being culturally accepted and recognised to being culturally marginal, and the subsequent emergence of WW games as a haven for non-"mainstream" RPGers, including women. My own view is that these various changes are not unrelated.)
They're not penalties; they're caps.
Normally I woudn't fuss to much about pedantic accuracy. But in the context of a completey false claim about the rules for PC sex and/or gender, I feel like correcting this also.
Last edited:
I think, when making criticisms, it's better to be accurate.
AD&D is sexist in all sorts of ways - 2nd ed moreso than 1st ed, in my view - but supposed rules mandating PC gender aren't an example of this.
And I will be interested in your thoughts on the change of pronoun between editions of AD&D - as I said, I think it's very significant and tells us something about RPGing more generally.
I see the explicit open-ness of 5e as an attempt to recapture and build on that pronoun open-ness of AD&D, and the relative inclusiveness of Moldvay Basic (with the iconic Morgan Ironwolf). Which is part of the broader attempt to make the game ordinary ("mainstream") rather than the province of a certain subcultural minority. The ordinary world includes women, and non-straight, and non-white people. The fact that the rulebook feels the need to point out that this is also true for the gameworld tells us a lot about what the publishers expect to be the default oultook of their core player base - they recognise that if they want their game to appeal more broadly they need to expressly rule out from the get-go the sorts of responses that (eg) were given about 4e halflings with cornrows.
- Status
Similar Threads
