Is this offensive?

[Oryan77]

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?

Despite what all of the thin-skinned offended people are saying to you, I wouldn't be offended and I understand your comparison to race.

I wouldn't necessarily implement that rule, but if a DM did I wouldn't be bothered by it as long as I get a perk for every penalty I take.

I'm not one to rely on my ability scores to make my characters be exceptional adventurers. I rely on my roleplaying skills to make my character exceptional. My characters have killed many PCs/NPCs & escaped death many times without my stats ever coming into play.

And to the people saying that adventurers are supposed to be exceptional....who ever said that a man or woman PC taking a -2 penalty for gender is going to keep them from being exceptional?

 

[Fifth Element]

Besides, just to turn it around, why not give all males a +2 Str/-1 Wis/-1 Cha? Why do females have to differ from the norm and not the males?

The OP suggested precisely that. Check the last bit.

 

[loseth]

The rules say the fictional, invented species known as "halfling" gets a -2 modifier. Who cares why?

For those I've talked to who feel strongly about race in D&D (and fantasy fiction in general), the issue is the uncomfortable parallels between fiction and Victorian (or, say, modern-day BNP) perceptions of reality.

For example, I love Howard and his Conan stories, but when I read passages containing Howard's ape men, I admit that I feel mildly uncomfortable. Of course I know that the ape men are a fictional race, but I feel pretty certain that the author feels there are parallels with 'reality.' Now, part of that is because I've actually read Howard's views on evolution and race, and can see the fit with his fiction, but even if I hadn't read his views on the matter, I think I'd still feel a little uncomfortable about his ape men.

Now, with halflings, admittedly, I can't imagine anyone being offended. But half-orcs... The munchkin in me says, 'Oooh, big Strength bonus--I want a half-orc fighter!' But I admit that there's a little nagging voice in the back of my head that says, 'Can I really be sure that this fictional race is not--at least to a small degree and on a subconscious level--influenced by real-world prejudices?'

Don't get me wrong--I don't want to come across as some politically correct Nazi. As I said, I'm fine with 'racial' modifiers existing in D&D, even if I would probably not use them to establish flavour if I were designing the game myself. I was just curious about the relatively greater concern with gender, and so wanted to get folks' opinions on why gender seems to be more of an issue.

 

[Morrus]

Despite what all of the thin-skinned offended people are saying to you, I wouldn't be offended and I understand your comparison to race.

I wouldn't necessarily implement that rule, but if a DM did I wouldn't be bothered by it as long as I get a perk for every penalty I take.

I'm not one to rely on my ability scores to make my characters be exceptional adventurers. I rely on my roleplaying skills to make my character exceptional. My characters have killed many PCs/NPCs & escaped death many times without my stats ever coming into play.

And to the people saying that adventurers are supposed to be exceptional....who ever said that a man or woman PC taking a -2 penalty for gender is going to keep them from being exceptional?

If it really matters, why not just choose to give your low score to Strength? Why does it need to be codified and enforced against people who don't agree with you, when you have the perfect tool, through score allocation, to do it yourself?

 

[Morrus]

Now, with halflings, admittedly, I can't imagine anyone being offended. But half-orcs... The munchkin in me says, 'Oooh, big Strength bonus--I want a half-orc fighter!' But I admit that there's a little nagging voice in the back of my head that says, 'Can I really be sure that this fictional race is not--at least to a small degree and on a subconscious level--influenced by real-world prejudices?'

Don't get me wrong--I don't want to come across as some politically correct Nazi. As I said, I'm fine with 'racial' modifiers existing in D&D, even if I would probably not use them to establish flavour if I were designing the game myself. I was just curious about the relatively greater concern with gender, and so wanted to get folks' opinions on why gender seems to be more of an issue.

Not really. "Races" in D&D are entirely different species from each other. There's no corrollary to anything in the real world.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'll tell you what. You be the one to tell my wife "You can't be as good, when playing your favorite class (fighter), as I can, because you're a girl." Then let's see whether you find her response offensive, m'kay?

(And don't give me "She could play a male character." Lots of people, of both genders, aren't comfortable with cross-gender RP.)

 

[loseth]

I'd argue that personality-based gender differences are so ingrained that the game simply doesn't need to apply a mechanical modifier to gender in order to make the choice meaningful to a player.

I think that's very true, but I also felt the same way about halflings in BECMI D&D. We didn't have stat penalties to reinforce the archetype, but in a weird way, those BECMI halflings actually felt more halflingy to me than 3e halflings do now. Probably that had more to do with my relatively greater powers of imagination then as compared to now, but it would still be interesting to see if a version of D&D that, like BECMI D&D, had no racial modifiers would be any less fun to play than one that does.

Edit: 'wierd/weird' I always get that wrong.

 

[Umbran]

As others have noted, odd-valued modifiers are not a good idea for D&D.

I am a variant on the "not so much offensive as pointless" camp.

We can find studies that show that human males and females are different. There are two ways in which this becomes a bit nonsensical with respect to D&D:

1) Strength is the only stat that has an objective mapping between a measurable real-world ability and the game stat (by way of lift capacities only, which isn't all there is to the stat). Lacking that for any other ability, there's no particular reason to think that your model is at all accurate.

2) The way the rules model changes in stats doesn't map to the real world well. Doubly so when the usual statistical measures showing the differences between men and women are not for a pseudo-medieval agrarian society in which monsters roam around on a regular basis. Given that some of the differences between men and women may well be cultural, learned, developmental, and the like - such that they may not exist in the different situation of the game world... well, I think that level of simulation isn't constructive.

That, in the end, is the question - does adding this difference make the game more fun? For me, no. I don't want it to be harder to make a female fighter with an 18 strength, as that could be less fun for my players, rather than more.

 

[Masquerade]

Yes, I consider it offensive. You're dealing with an issue that is very sensitive to myself and others, and you should probably just leave it be.

 

[BryonD]

I have nothing to add but to join the chorus.

Offensive? Not really. Dumb game design? Yeah, very.