AD&D First Edition inferior?

[diaglo]

yes.

1edADnD is inferior.

but then again so is any game when you compare it to Original D&D.

Original D&D is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.

 

[RobNJ]

I was always uncomfortable with the sexism in the "max ability score" charts for strength. I mean, yes, we know that on average women are not as strong as men. However, there was no "max con score" chart for men, or a shorter lifespan, even though both things are well documented for real life men and women.

 

[Dinkeldog]

I think Rob is trying to cast Summon Snoweel.

 

[RobNJ]

I think Rob is trying to cast Summon Snoweel.

I'm not sure what that is . But I'm being sincere. I figured I'd take the post at face value and talk about what I didn't like about 1E. Beyond the obvious stuff, that sexism bit always really rubbed me the wrong way.

 

[Celebrim]

I was always uncomfortable with the sexism in the "max ability score" charts for strength. I mean, yes, we know that on average women are not as strong as men. However, there was no "max con score" chart for men, or a shorter lifespan, even though both things are well documented for real life men and women.

Ahhh, what a great thread hijack.

Are they? First, I do not believe it is sexist to suggest that men are stronger than women.

Secondly, since CON also represents resistance to physical damage and injury, there is not a strong correlation to superior CON in women. I'm not sure what documentation you refer to, but I'm not convinced that women are more resistant to disease than men, but rather I suspect that reduced incidence of disease might well have to do women's superior tending of their own bodies (which is something I do know has been documented). For instance, married men outlive single men for the reason of having superior daily 'care'. Men just don't seem to think of these things and tend to (at least I tend to) treat my body as if it were indestructible and forget even to feed myself if not reminded by something.

I certainly don't think that women have a higher resistance to poison than men, since poison resistance generally related directly to body mass as much as anything else.

Thirdly, current average female lifespan in 1st world countries averages about 2 years longer in women than in men. This is a reverse of the historical average, primarily because so fewer women die in childbirth thanks to modern medicine. However, if you want to add two years to average lifespan and then do some math to work out how health care and average number of preganancies effects female lifespan in various cultures, be my guest. I'd actually like to see that, though I doubt many people would bother to make use of it.

To be frank, I don't think that there is clear evidence for some gaming advantage possessed by women that makes up for thier reduced strength, and that in general gaming systems are very generous in not imposing as much sexual dimorphism upon fantasy characters as actually exists in real life. If you wanted to be 'realistic' about it, females get lower body mass, lower daily food requirements, the ability to reproduce, and lower maximum strength for any given body mass. The evidence for anything else is scant. But this is fantasy, so who cares.

I'd personally be willing to give all females characters that wanted it -4 STR, +2 WIS, +2 CHR, not because I think that there is strong evidence for higher female wisdom and charisma, but that there is some sense in which we are willing to accept that women are wiser and more attractive than men. I call this the 'Fairer Sex' trait, and you can take it for free. However, just like the assertion that women are hardier than men, attractive as it seems, the assertion that women are more charasmatic than men tends to break down when we look at the broad picture of what charisma means.

But by no means is belief in 'equality' between the sexes the result of some sort of equal trade between gamable attributes.

 

[RobNJ]

Ahhh, what a great thread hijack.

Ah . . . I think people are reading much more nefarity in my comments than I intended. I'm not trying to start a flame war, honest .

Are they? First, I do not believe it is sexist to suggest that men are stronger than women.

Certainly not. I said as much. Women tend not to be as strong as men, but I'm saying that capping out strength like that, where it's not counterbalanced by something else, is needlessly problematic. First of all, I don't know that it's strictly accurate. 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.

Secondly, since CON also represents resistance to physical damage and injury, there is not a strong correlation to superior CON in women. I'm not sure what documentation you refer to, but I'm not convinced that women are more resistant to disease than men, but rather I suspect that reduced incidence of disease might well have to do women's superior tending of their own bodies

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.

To be frank, I don't think that there is clear evidence for some gaming advantage possessed by women that makes up for thier reduced strength, and that in general gaming systems are very generous in not imposing as much sexual dimorphism upon fantasy characters as actually exists in real life.

But there are things that women tend to excel over men at that may or may not be easily quantifiable in a game system. 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. Always did.

 

[LostSoul]

I found the demi-human level limits racist. Even though this game was made way back in the 60's, come on! Even the name "demi-human" implies inferiority.

 

[cildarith]

I found the demi-human level limits racist. Even though this game was made way back in the 60's, come on! Even the name "demi-human" implies inferiority.

"Humanoid" is sooo much better.

 

[GENEWEIGEL]

Here's something I researched the other day:

1) Original

Chainmail/D&D 3book set/five supplements (BM, GH, EW, GDH, S&S)

2) D&D basic 1

(blue book) (edited by Holmes)

3) Advanced D&D

(PHB, DMG, MM, De&De, FF, MM2, UA, OA)

4) D&D basic 2

D&D basic 2(Otus covers - magenta box) (edited by Moldvay)
D&D expert 1(Otus covers - light blue box) (edited by Dave Cook)

5) D&D basic 3

D&D basic 3(Elmore covers - red box) (edited by Mentzer)
D&D expert 2(Elmore covers -dark blue box) (edited by Mentzer)
D&D companion (Elmore covers - light blue box) (by Mentzer)
D&D Master (Elmore covers - black box) (by Gygax & Mentzer)
D&D Immortals (Elmore covers - gold box) (by Mentzer)

6) D&D Cyclopedia hardcover

(Easley cover) by Aaron Allston (essentially expert revision 3)

7) Advanced D&D 1.5

(not really separate but noting the major shift in direction post-Gygax) DragLance Adv, Greyhawk Adv, Dungeoneer's SG, Wilderness SG, Manual of the Planes

8)Advanced D&D second edition

(PHB, DMG, ToM, BoA, MonComps, Complete series, historical series, FR Adv)

9)Basic Set 4

(black box then full color then black again) "New Easy to Master D&D" later changed to "Classic D&D"

10)Dark Sun campaign setting

(definitely another version)

11)Advanced D&D 2.5

the option hardcover years

12)Third Edition Dungeons and Dragons

13)Hackmaster (PHB, GMG, Monster books)


I don't feel funny about someone's opinion of the original Advanced game but I do feel funny when they call the 12th edition the 3rd edition!

;P

 

[herald]

Hey look....

Villagers with torches.....


Hmmmm, I wonder what they are up too?