D&D General On Early D&D and Problematic Faves: How to Grapple with the Sins of the Past

[UngainlyTitan]

Gendered ability score modifiers are probably the least sexist of Gygax's sexism in design (not to say it isn't sexist). There are certain typical differences between men and women in physical strength, among other things, and trying to simulate that in and of itself isn't sexist. But it is flawed, because adventurer's do not represent "typical" people in any sense.

Not to mention that it is fantasy and people should not be bound by reality in their fantasies. If someone wants to be a superstrong woman warrior, then why not?

 

[Reynard]

Not to mention that it is fantasy and people should not be bound by reality in their fantasies. If someone wants to be a superstrong woman warrior, then why not?

Agreed. I am just saying that from a simulationist perspective, I understand the impulse to try and model it. The sexism comes in how to model and what differences there are based not on physiology but some idea of other traits that have no basis.

 

[Alzrius]

Just a nitpick, I think the gendered ability score caps shows up in only one version of D&D, 1e AD&D. It is not in OD&D, the basic line of D&D, or 2e AD&D, or later editions.

I think it is the only place you get explicit ability score caps of any kind.

It's the only place you get gendered ability score caps.

Ability score caps "of any kind" are all over the place, from 2E having a hard limit of 25 to 5E capping monsters at 30.

 

[Cadence]

Agreed. I am just saying that from a simulationist perspective, I understand the impulse to try and model it. The sexism comes in how to model and what differences there are based not on physiology but some idea of other traits that have no basis.

I think what bothers people about how much simulation/versimilitude is needed in a game is very much an individual thing. In particular, I would guess that things a person thinks about more are more likely to stand out (anything from how many kinds of pole arms there are to differences between men and women). His statements on not trying to simulate anything notwithstanding, I think this applied to EGG too.

 

[Alzrius]

I think what bothers people about how much simulation/versimilitude is needed in a game is very much an individual thing. In particular, in particular I would guess that things a person thinks about more are more likely to stand out (anything from how many kinds of pole arms there are to differences between men and women). His statements on not trying to simulate anything notwithstanding, I think this applied to EGG too.

Bear in mind that Gygax's statements about "simulating" things weren't used in the same sense that we use it today (which is typically in reference to Ron Edwards' GNS Theory). Gygax, by contrast, made it clear that he was referring to things like historical accuracy (which a lot of wargamers took to heights that we'd find ludicrous, such as not having a miniature that used the wrong kind of armor for a particular place and time) rather than world-building.

 

[Thomas Shey]

One of the things that can come up when people claim to be doing things on grounds of verisimilitude is that they're often, shall we say, pretty selective about what bothers them and what doesn't, and the particulars can be a very bad look.

That doesn't mean there can't be some legitimate issues there that are not sexist or otherwise super-questionable in intent; a lot of people are more sensitive to social dissonance than they are to physical dissonance in games (in other words, things that ring false socially or psychologically will bother them more than magic or super-science, or even some genre conventions). That said, when your sense of verisimilitude slams up against things that actively bother someone else, you should at least step back and see if that's a worthwhile tradeoff, and what it says that it is.

(in the specific case of EGG and some other old-school grogs, I suspect they just didn't give a single damn.)

 

[Reynard]

I think what bothers people about how much simulation/versimilitude is needed in a game is very much an individual thing. In particular, in particular I would guess that things a person thinks about more are more likely to stand out (anything from how many kinds of pole arms there are to differences between men and women). His statements on not trying to simulate anything notwithstanding, I think this applied to EGG too.

I personally love the fact that EGG's "it isn't a simulation" comment comes right before a bunch of charts about weapon reach and vs armor types.

 

[John R Davis]

It is not sexist to say the strongest human will be a man? Surely it isn't.
If a game said:
Human Men get +1 Str, +1 Dex and +1 Wis.
Human Women get +1 Con, +1 Int and +1 Cha.

Maybe it could different for different species ( say gnolls, dwarves).

Would that all be truly awful and get the game cancelled???

It's my birthday and I'm old so give me some leeway on my thoughts!! Ta

 

[Reynard]

It is not sexist to say the strongest human will be a man? Surely it isn't.
If a game said:
Human Men get +1 Str, +1 Dex and +1 Wis.
Human Women get +1 Con, +1 Int and +1 Cha.

Maybe it could different for different species ( say gnolls, dwarves).

Would that all be truly awful and get the game cancelled???

First of all, yes. including those mental stat modifiers based on sex at all is sexist, full stop.

Second, I think you are ignoring the fact that since this is a game about fantasies, there really isn't a need to try and force this kind of simulation.

 

[John R Davis]

First of all, yes. including those mental stat modifiers based on sex at all is sexist, full stop.

Second, I think you are ignoring the fact that since this is a game about fantasies, there really isn't a need to try and force this kind of simulation.

Ok. That's your and my opinion being different.