Is this offensive?

[loseth]

Deep appologies if this post itself offends anyone, but this is just something that I've always been really curious about, so I'm going to take the risk and ask...

D&D imagines races having different potentials. Orcs are dumber, but stronger. Dwarves are more socially awkward, but tougher, etc. In the real world, though, the only real differences between races are cosmetic ones, so although I'm personally fine with D&D 'races' (which I consider to be 'species' more than 'races' in the normal English sense of the word) having bonuses & penalties to their abilities, I do understand why the occasional player gets upset about races having different average 'stats.'

However, the case of gender presents exactly the opposite situation. In the real world there are proven differences between the strengths of men and women, and although there is still debate on the matter in the scientific community, it is probable that women are genuinely smarter than men with regard to languages and probably social intelligence in general. But--taking exaclty the opposite stance as it does with races--D&D is fastidious about making sure there are no such differences in the game (although cheesecake is OK). So, I ask, if D&D set men and women up like races, and gave women -2Str/+1Cha/+1Wis (to represent lower physical strength and higher linguistic/social intelligence) or, conversely, gave women no modifiers but men +2Str/-1Cha/-1 Wis, would this personally offend you?

 

[Morrus]

D&D is about heroic exceptions; while there may be differences in real life between the genders, the ones in a D&D adventuring party (i.e. any PCs) are the heroic fighters, wizards or rogues - the strongest, the fastest, the best. There's no need for gender-based differences - we're talking about a tiny, unusual, highly capable, elite subset of the worlds' fantasy society anyway.

 

[Wystan]

I voted option 1, but not so much offends as it is a Wrong Stereotype. I have seen female bodybuilders that can kick the tail of most people here and they would be the ones doing the adventuring.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I don't find it offensive, but pointless. As Morrus pointed out, PC's are the best of the best. Racial modifiers are largely for flavor and to reflect gross anatomical and cultural differences from human standard. Gender variation within that distribution should be minimal.

And, in any event, why tick off the player? Whereas many feel comfortable playing a different gender, some don't, and penalizing a player for that isn't worth a trivial increase in realism.

 

[loseth]

D&D is about heroic exceptions; while there may be differences in real life between the genders, the ones in a D&D adventuring party (i.e. any PCs) are the heroic fighters, wizards or rogues - the strongest, the fastest, the best. There's no need for gender-based differences - we're talking about a tiny, unusual, highly capable, elite subset of the worlds' fantasy society anyway.

I voted option 1, but not so much offends as it is a Wrong Stereotype. I have seen female bodybuilders that can kick the tail of most people here and they would be the ones doing the adventuring.

Is it not then fair to say the same about races? Surely, halflings who adventure are truly exceptional individuals--again the strongest and fastest. And surely there are--well, not halfling bodybuilders--but let's say big strappin' halfling farmers who could clean the floor with the average human in an arm wrasslin' competition? Should we not just drop the halfling Strength penalty*?

*BECMI/RC D&D, for example, did seem to imply that halflings were smaller and weaker than humans on average, but PC halflings had no Strength penalty.

Edit: Missing verb

 

[Nifft]

Odd stat modifiers offend me deeply.

Serious, -- N

 

[I'm A Banana]

In the real world, though, the only real differences between races are cosmetic ones, so although I'm personally fine with D&D 'races' (which I consider to be 'species' more than 'races' in the normal English sense of the word) having bonuses & penalties to their abilities, I do understand why the occasional player gets upset about races having different average 'stats.'

You're taking your fantasy too seriously, here. The adjustments are for archetype. And, in 4e, there won't even be penalties! Just bonuses! Anyone who is "upset" about the difference might be missing the point that this isn't about commenting about the real world in any way, and instead is supposed to be about letting you play "orcs are dumb and ugly" and "elves are graceful" and "halflings are good thieves."

So, I ask, if D&D set men and women up like races, and gave women -2Str/+1Cha/+1Wis (to represent lower physical strength and higher linguistic/social intelligence) or, conversely, gave women no modifiers but men +2Str/-1Cha/-1 Wis, would this personally offend you?

Yeah, it would. D&D isn't supposed to be the real world, and even in my most hardcore "rules are physics" moments, I can't justify a fantasy world that adheres to our Western conception of male and female gender roles as a rule. Maybe if I want to reflect a society like that, the women just tend to be priests and ranged fighters, and the men just tend to be melee fighters and wizards (or something). I don't need piddly little "gender modifiers" to do it.

Furthermore, it opens up an IMMENSE can of worms -- where's a woman's CON bonus for having a higher pain tolerance? A man's INT bonus for being more able at the mathematics? What about a matriarchal society? What about the famous myth of the Amazons? How can I represent a chivalric code? Blah, blah, blah....

There's no appeal in it for me, so it offends me because it seems collossally ignorant, shortsighted, and, ultimately, completely useless in making my game any better.

At the same time, the idea of, say, men and women having different roles in a society, or of cultural gender predisposition for certain classes, or of even alternate races that have pronounced gender features (especially if they're inspired by our real-world animals) is something that I think is pretty cool, in moderation.

I don't have any need or desire to replicate that with something as simplistic as ability score alterations, really. Gender is much more complex than +2/-1/-1 or -2/+1/+1.

 

[diaglo]

Odd stat modifiers offend me deeply.

Serious, -- N

similarly, any stat modifiers offend me.

3d6 in order or don't even bother.

 

[loseth]

3d6 in order or don't even bother.

This is the objectively correct way to roll up a character.

 

[Morrus]

Is it not then fair to say the same about races?

Races aren't real. Logic doesn't apply. The rules say the fictional, invented species known as "halfling" gets a -2 modifier. Who cares why?