AD&D First Edition inferior?

I don't think you were trying to start a flame war, but I do think that you managed to hit upon a theme that is even more conversation provoking than 1st edition D&D's 'inferiority'. :D

Some women are stronger than some men, but that would only be a counter assertion if my assertion was that all women are weaker than all men - which I never asserted. I merely suggested that average strength and maximum strength are both lower than in men. For example, if the strength modifer for being female is -4, then the strongest women (str 14+) will still be stronger than 75% of all men, but the _average_ man will be able to lift almost twice what the _average_ woman can (which is in fact true).

"I'm talking about things like pain tolerance, endurance, etc. Also (though this is just as sexist and generalist as saying men are always stronger than women), women tend to be better communicators than men."

I know what you are talking about. Those are the PC things to say when you discuss sexual equality. But they don't have necessarily a whole lot of basis in fact, and I personally feel that it is wrong to base the issue of sexual equality on some sort of balance between attributes.

Although I have seen and heard of extreme examples of pain tolerence in women, I have heard similar stories about men, and I don't notice in my daily affairs that average women tend to bear discomfort better than average men. In fact, quite the opposite - and this is that 'take care of yourself better' thing that I mentioned. Sometimes 'pain tolerence' isn't the best survival skill. If you actually examine the 'evidence' that leads people to assert that women have higher pain tolerence than men it seems to lie wholly in a feminist assertion that women bear pain better than men because women give birth. This is not evidence.

And I might add to that that pain tolerence is not a particularly important aspect of CON in D&D anyway, since pain is rarely actually implemented in D&D. D&D is famous for letting you act without hinderence right until you hit 0 h.p. and then suddenly you are almost dead. Even if we believed that women had superior 'pain tolerence' than men, I think we would be better off implementing it as 'shock resistance' of some fashion (and having seen people enter shock, women subjectively seem to physically cope with shock better than men do, but again that may be just an unconscious sexist perception that a 'delicate' women shouldn't handle that much pain as well as they do and not real measurement at all), than implementing it as a gross CON bonus. 'Reduced Shock' is something we could do in GURPS, but not something easily done in D20.

As for 'better communicators', I'm inclined to think that that belief has alot to do with sexist perceptions by both men and women more than it has to do with reality, but since it is _believed_ to be true, it may actually at some level represent a real CHR bonus because CHR is itself a subjective attribute.

Therefore, I reiterate, I think it was a bad idea for them to have put in limits on strength and provided no counterbalance. To put it bluntly, I find it unfair.

Well, maybe life is unfair. I don't think that there has to be a counterbalance. I don't think that a women's legal rights have anything to do with whether a counterbalance exists, though I have known plenty of women whose self esteem unfortunately seemed to depend on whether they believed a counterbalance existed. However, I do find that forcing a female character to be inferior is not conducive to fun gaming, however unrealistic it may be.

Actually, the one gamable advantage that you can definately base on reality I know of is reduced succeptibility to 'called shots'. :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

In my experience running 3e for a year I find it far less fun to DM than I did 1e & basic. So I think that 3e is a more complicated system to run and is therefore "inferior" for my gaming style. YMMV.
 

Greetings!

RobNJ Posted:
____________________________________________________
Quote:

"Women are capable of being stronger than men. Second, it puts an automatic game advantage to being male, which is flatly unfair in my opinion."
____________________________________________________
End Quote.

Hmmm...women are capable of being stronger than men? Well, weaker men, certainly. However, the facts show that not only are the average men stronger than the average woman, but in all the contests of physical strength--take world-class bodybuilders, for example--even the "strongest" women are far below the strongest men. Really, there is no comparrison. It is merely a fact that must be accepted, regardless of how inconvenient it may make some radicals feel. Thus, men, in fact, are generally far stronger than women. The only incidence where that isn't the case is when comparing the exceptionally rare, very muscular female, to an out-of-shape, far less developed male, which, while showing that a few women are stronger than a few men, isn't really a useful comparrison. Physically, then, men should have great advantages over women. I don't quite see why this natural fact is so "offensive" to some people.

Certainly women are physically capable, but when one compares women's performance in professional sports, for example, there really isn't any comparrison either. Basketball, Football, Running, Rowing, and so on. The best are all men, and in any kind of contest between even skilled athletes, the male athletes prevail over female athletes in virtually all levels of performance. Notice that virtually nowhere in professional sports do they have mixed teams, nor do they pit female teams against male teams--because all male teams have always been superior. M/M competitions work, and F/F competitions work, but comparing the two would merely be an exersize in depression as the women are defeated every time.:)

In game terms though, it probably isn't a point worth enforcing, as it is, after all, a game.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
 

No not a flame but a curse...

Such is the way of the radical...

You're either with me or against me.

I've got to stop watching Excalibur

;)

Seriously, I think it's time for peace. Not war.

I just write like a berserker. Always have, always will.

Is it just me or do you think the Third Edition is due for an overhaul?

Let's be honest now.
 

I think this thread proves that women deserve a +4 bonus to Int, Wis, and Cha.

Int: They're not getting involved because they're obviously are too smart to get into an unprovable battle.

Wis: They're not going to waste energy on a lost cause.

Cha: They're not making asses of themselves.

Now, can we go back to addressing whether it's fair to call 1st Edition inferior?

----------------------

Edit: While I'm at it, absolutely no one has been given permission to treat this like it's a political issue. That especially applies if you've been around this site long enough to know better.
 
Last edited:



Theuderic said:
Yes, I wonder if Turd Edition will still be the "perfect" edition when the new one comes out.
If a theoretical 4th edition were to improve as vastly and substantively over 3rd edition as 3rd edition did over 1st and 2nd, I would of course prefer 4th edition.

The idea that I would maintain blind loyalty to any ruleset because of its number or because I liked playing it is just ludicrous.
 

The idea that I would maintain blind loyalty to any ruleset because of its number or because I liked playing it is just ludicrous. [/B][/QUOTE]

Reread the last part of that sentence. Ludicrous?
 

I can't beleive I'm getting involved with this...


Oh well, here I go..


I thought that adventures weren't average people. They didn't act in a typical, and they didn't have typicial attributes. After all, they were born to be heroes.

If that's the case, why bother doing stat bonuses and restrictions?
 

Remove ads

Top