Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Sexism in Table-Top Gaming: My Thoughts On It, and What We Can Do About It
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6203569" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>I'm only familiar with the strength cap from the 1st edition rules. Based on the language you are using with regard to it, you aren't really familiar with the rule, which would have allowed human females to have up to 18/50 strength which I don't even know what equates to since after 18 the scale in 1e gets all wonky and non-linear. Suffice to say that 18/50 is a very strong person, and I've never seen a 1e character with more strength than that except by cheating.</p><p></p><p>Now, I'm not going to try to defend the realism of 1e AD&D. I got frustrated by the lack of realism of 1e AD&D and left it for GURPS in the mid 90's. But the general notion that the maximum strength of women is lower than men is not a sexist notion. It's just reality. Whether it is a reality we need to capture in gaming is a matter of opinion, but it's not a stereotype and if 18/50 is an unrealistic maximum cap on women then its possible that 18/00 is an unrealistic maximum cap on men. I don't know. I invite you to investigate the world and American records in dead lifting, the bench press, and the clean and jerk and figure out what the realistic maximum cap for genders is. I don't really care that much one way or the other, nor do I really see why anyone else cares. Surely most women know that they aren't quite as strong as most men their size, and surely they are ok with that because really, valuing yourself based on the idea that the only thing that counts is your martial virtue is falling prey to an inherently sexist view of the world. In any event, I find no need to place a strength cap on men or women in my 3e inspired game because 18 is well below the maximum strength possible for men or women realistically, which it is my sense might be as high as 23 for women and 27 for men. Any character that gets in those rarified heights in 3e is a superhero anyway, so I suppose that could be cause for complaint - "Real women have a 23 strength and they aren't 20th level super heroes. You're being sexist for not letting my character start with 23 strength."</p><p></p><p>But in any event, it's not a given that anyone - male or female - is jerking a dragon around by the tail. I invite you to drop in on my thread about gnomes as throwing weapons to see the sort of granularity I pride myself on in my play. </p><p></p><p>It occurs to me that I've never created a female character with the Brute NPC class. I'm not sure I actually feel guilty about that.</p><p></p><p>But let's not sit here and pretend this is about realism or sensitivity to peoples feelings. You've got a whole laundry list of things you are complaining about and insisting that gamers conform to even to the extent that you seem to be saying that they can't be portrayed in a negative way, and that single 'incidents' while not as worthy of scorn are still at least a little worthy of scorn. You've managed to get more Puritanical than a guy whose been accused of being a prude. And by dodging around saying this is about being respectful and sensitive, you completely avoid the main thrust of my complaint which is that there is nothing at all nuanced, sensitive or respectful in the way you are viewing women or men. </p><p></p><p>In any event, while for various reasons neither sex nor rape are major themes in my gaming, for the very reasons that its reasonably common (the exact numbers being a matter of controversy but certainly we agree 'too often') in the real world and is a very serious subject its also going to exist in at least the background of my world. I don't really intend to limit my campaign to your review or censure.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What constitutes consistent realism is very much a matter of opinion. I find the whole 'what is the real history of women' subject to be a frustrating one as a amateur historian, because it seems that the only writers that really care are typically prone to shoddy scholarship and gleeful acceptance of anything that backs their beliefs. Chasing your links and your links' links leads to either to things that aren't what you say they are, or else a bunch of increasingly less than credible claims by persons who are clearly biased to accept anything that backs their desired conclusions. Casually chasing a handful debunked many of them with minutes. So I can't tell with certainty what is true or not, but I do know that on the basis of those links I wouldn't be nearly as dramatic and confrontational about the evidence as you are: it seems pretty weak, and if I really was undecided on this point and not you know married to a woman with PhD that can out run me, I'd be 'point to the chauvinists' after browsing your links. Again, the basis of equality of the genders is not equality on the field of battle or any other field of endeavor. Though for reasons I'll mention later it hardly matters in the context of a FRPG whether or not its realistic to have female warriors. </p><p></p><p>When someone with clear political intentionality provides me with a quote purported to be by some founding father or the other, I hold all those claims as inherently suspect. I've learned to not repeat any such quote without spending a few hours validating it. The last time I got in that debate about what the founding fathers really believed, it turned out both sides were basing their argument on fraudulent history and made up quotations. I suspect if I jumped in between a bunch of feminists and chauvinists, I'd find the same thing.</p><p></p><p>For no other reason than I have a thing for unusual forms of government I have a prominent nation that is ruled by strict matrimonial succession (a Queendom), and another that is governed by the female heirs of a female leper that was instrumental in liberating the nation from 1000 years of bondage by an oppressor. Is either realistic? I don't really care. It's a fantasy setting. It's not the real world. If I want to have female warriors in the setting I will, and certainly nothing bars an effective female fighter in my rules. If I want armies of women in the setting, I'll have those too.</p><p></p><p>But if I had feminists in my fantasy world, they'd probably not be presented in a particularly favorable light. And if someone said, "I don't want armies of women in my setting", my first inclination wouldn't be to castigate him.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6203569, member: 4937"] I'm only familiar with the strength cap from the 1st edition rules. Based on the language you are using with regard to it, you aren't really familiar with the rule, which would have allowed human females to have up to 18/50 strength which I don't even know what equates to since after 18 the scale in 1e gets all wonky and non-linear. Suffice to say that 18/50 is a very strong person, and I've never seen a 1e character with more strength than that except by cheating. Now, I'm not going to try to defend the realism of 1e AD&D. I got frustrated by the lack of realism of 1e AD&D and left it for GURPS in the mid 90's. But the general notion that the maximum strength of women is lower than men is not a sexist notion. It's just reality. Whether it is a reality we need to capture in gaming is a matter of opinion, but it's not a stereotype and if 18/50 is an unrealistic maximum cap on women then its possible that 18/00 is an unrealistic maximum cap on men. I don't know. I invite you to investigate the world and American records in dead lifting, the bench press, and the clean and jerk and figure out what the realistic maximum cap for genders is. I don't really care that much one way or the other, nor do I really see why anyone else cares. Surely most women know that they aren't quite as strong as most men their size, and surely they are ok with that because really, valuing yourself based on the idea that the only thing that counts is your martial virtue is falling prey to an inherently sexist view of the world. In any event, I find no need to place a strength cap on men or women in my 3e inspired game because 18 is well below the maximum strength possible for men or women realistically, which it is my sense might be as high as 23 for women and 27 for men. Any character that gets in those rarified heights in 3e is a superhero anyway, so I suppose that could be cause for complaint - "Real women have a 23 strength and they aren't 20th level super heroes. You're being sexist for not letting my character start with 23 strength." But in any event, it's not a given that anyone - male or female - is jerking a dragon around by the tail. I invite you to drop in on my thread about gnomes as throwing weapons to see the sort of granularity I pride myself on in my play. It occurs to me that I've never created a female character with the Brute NPC class. I'm not sure I actually feel guilty about that. But let's not sit here and pretend this is about realism or sensitivity to peoples feelings. You've got a whole laundry list of things you are complaining about and insisting that gamers conform to even to the extent that you seem to be saying that they can't be portrayed in a negative way, and that single 'incidents' while not as worthy of scorn are still at least a little worthy of scorn. You've managed to get more Puritanical than a guy whose been accused of being a prude. And by dodging around saying this is about being respectful and sensitive, you completely avoid the main thrust of my complaint which is that there is nothing at all nuanced, sensitive or respectful in the way you are viewing women or men. In any event, while for various reasons neither sex nor rape are major themes in my gaming, for the very reasons that its reasonably common (the exact numbers being a matter of controversy but certainly we agree 'too often') in the real world and is a very serious subject its also going to exist in at least the background of my world. I don't really intend to limit my campaign to your review or censure. What constitutes consistent realism is very much a matter of opinion. I find the whole 'what is the real history of women' subject to be a frustrating one as a amateur historian, because it seems that the only writers that really care are typically prone to shoddy scholarship and gleeful acceptance of anything that backs their beliefs. Chasing your links and your links' links leads to either to things that aren't what you say they are, or else a bunch of increasingly less than credible claims by persons who are clearly biased to accept anything that backs their desired conclusions. Casually chasing a handful debunked many of them with minutes. So I can't tell with certainty what is true or not, but I do know that on the basis of those links I wouldn't be nearly as dramatic and confrontational about the evidence as you are: it seems pretty weak, and if I really was undecided on this point and not you know married to a woman with PhD that can out run me, I'd be 'point to the chauvinists' after browsing your links. Again, the basis of equality of the genders is not equality on the field of battle or any other field of endeavor. Though for reasons I'll mention later it hardly matters in the context of a FRPG whether or not its realistic to have female warriors. When someone with clear political intentionality provides me with a quote purported to be by some founding father or the other, I hold all those claims as inherently suspect. I've learned to not repeat any such quote without spending a few hours validating it. The last time I got in that debate about what the founding fathers really believed, it turned out both sides were basing their argument on fraudulent history and made up quotations. I suspect if I jumped in between a bunch of feminists and chauvinists, I'd find the same thing. For no other reason than I have a thing for unusual forms of government I have a prominent nation that is ruled by strict matrimonial succession (a Queendom), and another that is governed by the female heirs of a female leper that was instrumental in liberating the nation from 1000 years of bondage by an oppressor. Is either realistic? I don't really care. It's a fantasy setting. It's not the real world. If I want to have female warriors in the setting I will, and certainly nothing bars an effective female fighter in my rules. If I want armies of women in the setting, I'll have those too. But if I had feminists in my fantasy world, they'd probably not be presented in a particularly favorable light. And if someone said, "I don't want armies of women in my setting", my first inclination wouldn't be to castigate him. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Sexism in Table-Top Gaming: My Thoughts On It, and What We Can Do About It
Top