D&D General Problematic issues with TSR era D&D from a modern lens

[Bacon Bits]

I'm going to disagree with this one, but simply because of the fundamentals of the language. In English the male gender (in the original literary sense) is considered proper use when referring to a mixed group. For example, "man" and "mankind" refers to all people, regardless of sex or gender. The problem is that the term gender has changed from being just a literary term to being somewhat synonymous with sex, creating a level of confusion between the two uses.

I wouldn't say "is" at all anymore. I don't believe APA or MLA or Chicago support this grammar anymore. I think they all support "they" as the neutral pronoun today.

It certainly was true in through the mid 90s when it started to get real pushback, but 1e and 2e authors could rightly claim it as the preferred and accepted style of the day. However, "he or she" was also very common in the 80s and 90s, in spite of how awkward it becomes after repeated use.

 

[Haldrik]

I'm going to disagree with this one, but simply because of the fundamentals of the language. In English the male gender (in the original literary sense) is considered proper use when referring to a mixed group. For example, "man" and "mankind" refers to all people, regardless of sex or gender. The problem is that the term gender has changed from being just a literary term to being somewhat synonymous with sex, creating a level of confusion between the two uses.

Human, humanity, humankind.

For gender indefinite, I tend to use "one, the one, oneself", or switch to plural, "they, themself".

 

[Richards]

First edition AD&D, the non-human-headed sphinxes (blanking on the names) pursued unwilling gynosphinxes.

Per the AD&D 1st Edition Monster Manual, the ram-headed sphinxes are criosphinxes and the hawk-headed ones are hieracosphinxes. Both forms are male only, as the only type of female sphinx is the gynosphinx. A gynosphinx is only interested in mating with an androsphinx, but she gives birth to either a gynosphinx (if the offspring is female, despite the father's type) or the same type as the father (if the offspring is male). So by definition, all criosphinxes and hieracosphinxes are the products of rape (or at least were back in AD&D 1E).

Johnathan

 

[Lord Twig]

The only thing that bothered me back then was the strength restriction on female characters. I almost dropped it immediately. It took a group of women at my table to see the folly of this. It was my second year as a DM and I was 13 years old at that time. When I said that to my DM (he was 17) his girl friend punched him on the shoulder and said: "If a 13 year old can see that, so should you!". He did the same in his games.

While that is an interesting anecdote, it does not match my own experience. I played in the early 80s with a few female players and not one of them questioned the limit on female strength. The fact is men are, on average, stronger than women and it is also a fact that no woman is as strong as the strongest men. That's just true.

There were probably a couple of other reasons that no one I played with worried about the strength limits. First, we were pretty strict on the rolling of stats. The odds of getting anything over 18/75 strength is pretty small anyway. Then on top of all that, once you got gauntlets of ogre power or a belt of giant strength it didn't matter what you rolled for strength at all. So why even worry about it?

Now I'm not saying we should bring back limits on strength or anything like that. It is a fantasy game, and in a fantasy world women can be just as strong as men physically, it's just not true in the real world.

 

[Lylandra]

I always found the strength limitation to be singling out a single statistic real-life difference. No one thought about other obvious biological differences, like, changing your save vs. poison based on your body mass, or making several dex-based skills be penalized with increasing height, or letting smaller characters consume less rations per week. Let alone the unrealistic weapon mechanics. It is as if some guys are unknowlingly wired to try make their own RL group the best in game as well.

 

[Zardnaar]

While that is an interesting anecdote, it does not match my own experience. I played in the early 80s with a few female players and not one of them questioned the limit on female strength. The fact is men are, on average, stronger than women and it is also a fact that no woman is as strong as the strongest men. That's just true.

There were probably a couple of other reasons that no one I played with worried about the strength limits. First, we were pretty strict on the rolling of stats. The odds of getting anything over 18/75 strength is pretty small anyway. Then on top of all that, once you got gauntlets of ogre power or a belt of giant strength it didn't matter what you rolled for strength at all. So why even worry about it?

Now I'm not saying we should bring back limits on strength or anything like that. It is a fantasy game, and in a fantasy world women can be just as strong as men physically, it's just not true in the real world.

1E was the only one to do it. Even from a simulationist pov however the strongest women in 1980 had 18/00 strength.

Such a women would be unusual/rare but they do exist.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

The AD&D dinosaurs don't have enough feathers.

 

[jasper]

The AD&D dinosaurs don't have enough feathers.

And are cold blooded.

 

[MGibster]

Nonmagical archetypes like fighter tend to be depicted as shorthair cleanshaven jocks in masculine clothing, while magical archetypes like wizard tend to be depicted as longhair longbeard in somewhat feminine robes.

The stereotype feels problematic. I tend to identify more with the magical archetypes, and also identify more with the masculine archetypes. So I notice the stereotype of the nonmasculine magic more than other gamers might.

I don't think anyone looks at Elminister and thinks he looks feminine. A wizard's garb is based on the type of clothing worn by the wealthy or the scholarly in days gone by. We still wear such clothing at high school and college graduations and court rooms (in some countries). And of course the beard represents not just masculinity but also knowledge and power. So when you see a dude in a robe with a long flowing white beard you know he's wise and knowledgeable.

I want to see more images of goodlooking cleancut wizard jocks.

In my last D&D campaign I described an NPC wizard as Terry Crews in a robe.

 

[VelvetViolet]

The AD&D dinosaurs don't have enough feathers.

And are cold blooded.

To be fair, that wasn’t widely known in the 1980s.