Barbie-Skewed
A while back Wizards of the Coast published an article by Monte Cook discussing elements of older editions of D&D that could/should make the transition into D&D Next. A poll accompanied the article with a few options that raised eyebrows for varying reasons but the big one was Ability Score restrictions based on gender.
Holy shit. Really?
Gender/race restrictions existed in older editions of the game but it was a completely different time. I’m not saying there was ever a good time for such things but I think you get my meaning. Social and gender perceptions for the time, etc. The option created a massive storm of online discussion, arguments, and hurt feelings resulting in WotC altering the poll with apologies for the oversight as from their stance the option never should have existed in the poll to begin with.
I agree with this move for a number of reasons but I’ll limit my thoughts to one: I play games to have fun, not engage in political or deep social discussions. There is a time and place for that but time spent playing games are meant to be an escape. The possibility of including such gender restrictions (which they did not, thankfully) only serves to drag drama to the table and alienate half of the gaming community, which most folks do not need help with, honestly.
Lady gamers face many unenviable factors in gaming situations (pig-headed assholes, condescending attitudes, half-naked-chainmail-bikini-clad imagery). It is not something I would want to face day in/day out and while I would never presume to know or walk in their shoes, I have to hope that some companies are moving towards the side of least offense. With so many big-boobed barbarian queens and leather bikini rogues running around, it makes me giddy to stumble across a piece of art for a campaign setting or adventure where the ladies are depicted in full armor, doing what heroes do. I know I am not the only one and I hope the trend turns this way more often.
I’m glad WotC clarified their position on this. I’m sure somewhere, someone is still festering over it but you know what? You can’t make everyone happy. Hell, I’m willing to bet people are pissed they removed the option from the poll.
Brian
“women fighters in reasonable armor” http://womenfighters.tumblr.com/ is a worthwhile little corner of the interwebs. also, it’s by the brilliant mind that brought us “old school hack” http://www.oldschoolhack.net/
“Old School Hack” looks awesome!! Thanks for the link
Maybe their new process is vetted through the power of Santorium a special radioactive rock from a dead planet know as the fifties
Bah such gender distinction should be “local reality” based (ie culture and races) in other words … dependant on DM and storyline
That tumblr is totally sweet. I stumbled across it many months ago, but its pretty frequently updated with heroic ladies in adequate armor.
I love that character design! I’d like to use her in my next module and… Uh… Guys? Wait, let’s be reas-… AAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!
Gee. Are you shure, that was completely serious? Because if I had read such an option like that in a poll, I would have laught so hard that… well… I don’t find any good comparison for how hard I would have laught.
Come on, that had to be a joke. Right? Right?
I don’t recall seeing literal chain-mail bikinis in an official D&D product for quite some time. Progress?
While there are still plenty of examples of ridiculous armor (i.e. revealing, too form fitting, or with bits for weapons to catch on), I think you’ll find that wizards & warlocks are now the worst offenders when it comes to dressing like strippers.
But didn’t that poll also include stuff like THAC0? I don’t think every option was serious market research.
Goddamn… THAC0.
Yeah, I am sure the poll wasn’t hardcore research but I’m willing to be anything that touched a nerve, so to speak, was noted (like Vancian magic). Like said in the post, I’m sure it (being gender restrictions) was a true oversight (or even a joke that did not fly as intended).
@pdunwin: No kidding on the cloth wearer strippers. “I am a high mage of the eighth circle. Master sage, bearer of ancient wisdom, and have you seen my rockin’ tits?”
Maybe they were thinking something less like old-school D&D gender limitations, and something more akin to Elder Scroll gender differences.
I hope.
Otherwise, screw the sexists.
They should really not let Monte Cook talk.
God, I wish I could find that letter! My googlefu is weak today, but I was reading an article two years ago by a woman who wrote a nasty letter to Gary about the stat penalties, and he wrote back to her defending his position. I do believe dndn needs to get back to old school rules, and frankly, I’m
Ok with penalties and caps for just about everything. If your table (and all others) agree to house rule something out, that’s fine (some might say modular)! That’s why Gygax said dwarven women have beards, so you can say “uh…nope, sorry Gary, not playing that.” He gave us the incentive to make HIS game our own. If Gary said women get a strength penalty, put it back in the book, let ME decide what pieces I want, that’s the stated POINT of D&DNEXT. But when you start whitewashing anything that less then 90% agree on, you get a bland 3.0->4.essentials slide with no flavor, no roleplaying, just average DPS that make you wonder why you bother rolling dice for 45 minutes.
The intent of the poll was to have some obvious bad choices, so as to underscore how in looking back there are some things (like THACO or negative AC) that won’t be considered. Monte made that point in the article, but it wasn’t clear enough. It was both hurtful and triggered some people selecting that choice to be trolls (or represent their anxiety over equality).
I forget where it was, but there was a recent picture of an adventuring couple where they were prepared for adventure but the woman was holding a breastfeeding baby. It caused its own controversy, sadly, because some are really uncomfortable around such images. I liked how that seemed to fuel this strip.
Achieving diversity/equality in gaming requires awareness and a willingness for the community to call out problems. An example is the European MtG player that was banned from a show after he said horrible things about a female Wizards employee. It was a very clear message to the community.
It also requires building the game in a diverse manner. The two Essentials books are pretty good in that regard. I think the message has been pretty well received at the Wizards level, and it is probably about putting a few policies in place so it isn’t about a few people catching bad art and so it gets to the artist level. Similarly, the designers have grown up on games that were often male-centric (for obvious reasons) and likely need some guidance.
On the organized play side, I’ve personally been really pleased. We haven’t had to tell authors to be inclusive. The adventures come to us with powerful and positive female NPCs and with a diversity of cultures/ethnicity represented. It’s a good sign that the message is getting through and getting closer to being “the way we do things”.
Quixote, the problem with gender penalties is that it wasn’t meant to be a serious part of the game. Gary himself said he never used them. It was on par with weapons vs AC tables – something practically no one used because they were very poor representations of the real world and no fun in actual practice. Bad rules shouldn’t be in the game, full stop.
Even if they were fun rules, the gender cap has terrible effects on the game: few would want to play female characters and it would send the message that women, even in a fantasy world where we are supposed to shed our real-world problems and have a great time, are not equal. Adding in rules for cases where men are stereotypically or statistically inferior won’t help – it all comes back to not being fun and to sending the wrong messages for a game.
And that’s not even getting to the issue of this game sorely needing greater acceptance by women. We need gender caps like we need rules for spellcasting based on real-world religions… meaning we just don’t need them in any way, shape, or form.
Optional rules? Anyone can re-insert a gender cap into their game. But I can’t see why, and neither would Gary.
Personally, I don’t have an issue with it if it is balanced. If a female character can’t have 18 STR but a male can’t have 18 CHR… it makes sense. At least as far as humans go.
Who am I to judge how much testosterone and fast twitch muscle fiber a half-orc female would possess?
I’m not sure… it does sound balanced as you put it, but it is a matter of debate what one finds attractive and what not. Me? I look at your picture and wish I had your phone number.
But then again, are we really ready to separate actual facts about physical performance by gender to someone’s personal opinion about a goatee and ears as sweet and good-looking? I believe that a fantasy game should not fall into such complication. At least not D&D next (but maybe 2016’s D&D coming, 2020’s D&D subsequent and 2021’s D&D back-to-back!)
“This poll didn’t say *Human* Gender restrictions/penalties, did it? Gender dimorphism is a thing, and in some species there really are drastic differences between males and females of the species. Honestly, saying it doesn’t exist in humans is pretty ignorant, but getting all PC about it regard all fantasy races is just plain stupid. Just having male and female shardminds, or any number of necessities catering to the necessity to ‘humanize’ all species of playable creatures in the game.”
“As for the chainmail bikini type issue, when you’re dealing with people who can physically challenge Gods to battle, and wear enchanted armor, maybe how the armor looks becomes less of a practicality issue. Especially with female magic users. If I am not going to wear armor anyway, because of my MAGIC POWERS protecting me, then I’d probably dress provocatively because seduction and distraction are viable weapons and tools and I’m out risking my life, so I don’t give a crap about political correctness.”
“Also, we’re talking about Medieval Fantasy, keyword *Medieval*. Does that make it an Earth equivalent? No. However, the likelihood of people playing a super-politically correct, no racism or sexism campaign, tends to float on the spectrum of players who aren’t mature or intelligent enough to handle those issues.”
I do dig some simulationist design. All things being equal I say go for realism. And, it doesn’t hurt to bend a little in favour of realism as long as balance and gameplay does not suffer.
And Women are just not as strong as men. Looking at Olympic records, men can simply lift more. Even in the same weight range, men outperform. But having sex-based limits doesn’t really add anything to the game. It’s realism at the expense of player options and flexibility. At best! And at worst it rings of sexism and misogyny.
This is simply not an “all things being equal” situation. And fun and gameplay are both affected.
Fuck sexuality-based limits.
Oh… and the anthropology minor in me feels compelled to point out “gender” is not the same thing as “biological sex”. “Gender” refers to the societal characteristics of “sex”. What one culture thinks of as “male” or “masculine” another culture might think of as “female” or “feminine”. Likewise, there can be more than two genders.
Even in North America we differentiate between straight male and homosexual male, as homosexual males do not equate with females and are thus a different gender. And if you look deeper there are different types of male homosexuals, be it “pitcher” and “catcher” (or the more masculine “Wills” versus the more flaming “Jacks”) which could each be considered a separate gender.
Just sayin’
For the people arguing that you can take it out can’t you just add it and leave it out of official books if its so simple ?
Wait a minute…you talk about sex and gender roles and disparage “half naked bikini chainmail imagery” while your comments are bracketed by ads for comics with large breasted cyborgs and guys getting an eyeful of serving wenches cleavage. 🙂
Why not put your money where your mouth is and refuse ads that promote what you demote?
Hey, I’m the guy who made the ad with “guys getting an eyeful of serving wenches cleavage.” It’s one guy doing that, and the point is that he is a paladin and shouldn’t be doing that.
You are TOTALLY overlooking the wholesome drinking, smoking, and guns that are present in the ad. Come on man!
In all seriousness though, I do try to have the actual female protagonists in the comic be dressed fairly conservatively, not have ridiculous proportions, and be comparable to the male protagonists capability-wise.
I was going to write a really long comment because this reminded me of a campaign our group calls the “Abomination campaign” (it was never finished, for good reason) in which we attempted to play ourselves, having been transported to the D&D world.
A word of advice: DON’T EVER HAVE A CAMPAIGN WHERE PEOPLE PLAY THEMSELVES. It will not end well, and there will very likely be grudges all around. Perhaps especially if you have a mixed group of male and female players (like myself). You can play characters -like- yourself all you want, but don’t ever have it actually be you, someone will end up hurt and/or angry.
It sounds fun when you wonder what you would do in the D&D world, but don’t fall for it!
okay, so i’m a little late to this comment thread, yes. But i’m a little confused, honestly. i own 5 versions of D&D (1, 2, 3, 3.5, and 4) although i am only at all familiar with the first four. i have never once seen a gender-restriction on stats. Race and class restrictions certainly, but gender? Never seen it. Does anyone have a reference on that?
Dunerat, it was present in Basic D&D and also 1st Edition. In a `real world’ view, it made sense (of a sort) as women…even hard-core super-buff women…have less physical strength than a male of comparable condition.
However, I didn’t like that there was little to no thought put into the advantages of playing a female. Better hand-eye coordination and reflexes would translate to a Dex bonus, but…nope. And sorry, but the ability to give birth and not only survive but usually be up taking care of baby the next day? Yeah, that’s definitely a Con bonus.
So, sure, make men stronger because it *is* realistic. But you should also make the women hardier and more graceful. Never mind the combat modifiers…if we’re going realistic, the average man fighting against a female, as was shown in a previous one-off comic…she flashes him, the guy is GONNA look. She gets auto initiative and a bonus to hit.
So, if you’re going to play an ultra-realistic game…sure, sex/gender restrictions make sense. However, when we’re channeling divine power to turn undead and heal mortal wounds…and our mage is throwing fire and ice created from nothing…yeah, I’m thinking we can let reality take a back seat to just having fun.
Okay, it took me long enough (there was a move involved), but i have finally dug out my books and checked.
There are exactly 2 references to PC gender between the 1st Ed AD&D PG and DMG, 1 in each. The DMG only makes the reference with regard to the NPC height/weight tables, and so is irrelevant to this discussion. The PG only mentions it in the notes of Strength Table I, where it has a confusing selection of minimum and maximum scores for classes, races, and genders all mixed together. In my thirty years of gaming in this system, i cannot remember a single DM that used that section of the table, however. But you are correct, it is there, though it is never mentioned again. At all.
i’m not sure what your experience has been, but in the “real world”, as you put it, women do not have any consistent limits on strength. In Western cultures, women are traditionally told they are not supposed to be as strong as men, but there are no practical biological limits on those who wish to put in the work.
So for the most realistic game, the best answer is to throw out the single instance of ability score gender references in the game and continue play as if they did not exist, because in realistic terms, they don’t.
Wow. You hear about that kind of craziness online, but I never thought I’d actually see someone claim that men being stronger than women was just a cultural thing. It sure takes balls to tell every female athlete ever that they’re just not trying hard enough to catch up with the men.
i’m not sure if you were talking to me or Grimjac, honestly, but i don’t think you quite understood my point if it was me.
…..I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again: breast milk should be considered a projectile/ranged attack.