And he wonders why he doesn't have players.

[Dracons]

So, here is a friend of mine who cannot keep players due to his house rules.

They are NOT the worst in the world, but just shows how he view women in general. Plus he has the most ....wierdest character creation system I've seen ever.




all scores begin at 6. distribute 43 points to make them adventure-ready.
6 cost 0
7 - 14 cost 1:1
15 - 16 cost 2:1
17 - 18 cost 3:1
no point-buying stats. above 18
apply adjustments after distribution is complete

example: 1st lvl. male frost giant
str 18 (+4 racial adj. +1 gender adj.)
dex 10
con 11
int 11
wis 10
cha 8 (-1 gender adj.)
luck 11


I am basing my game system on the Victorian era.
Why? Throughout history society has been mainly chauvinist, uptight, and sexually repressed. I am trying to capture that realism here.

Females
Ability adjustments: +1 Cha., –1 Str.
Ability adjustments do not apply to Dwarfs, Orcs, Golblinoids, & monsters.
Oppression: in 90% of the world’s societies females are looked down upon and patronized at best, enslaved, raped and murdered at worst. In male dominated societies females get –2 to checks involving Cha. when attempting “a male’s job” or dressed in anything other than “proper female clothing.” [ex. Ankle or half calf-length dresses and skirts, blouse, corset with veil and parasol/umbrella (wealthy only), high-heeled shoes (except on farms and ranchland)] (While wearing such clothing females get a –1 Armor Check Penalty. ACP for female clothing is doubled for riding but not swimming. No armor benefit is conferred by the clothing.) These penalties stack. (ex. A woman wearing armor, riding a horse, drinking alcohol, and getting in a fistfight suffers –7 to all checks involving Cha.)
Any males accompanying such a rebellious female are likewise at a –2 penalty to checks involving Cha. Such males are seen in “civilized” society as ungentlemanly and in uncivilized society as weak-willed.
Equipped in Drag: social expectations require females to stay at their homes and local communities. There is no great demand for female armor or practical feminine clothing in the wilderness. These items are considered exotic. (price x 3)
Special: if she wears/uses male equipment and makes a successful disguise check (DC 15), she suffers none of the penalties to Cha. listed above, but still suffers -1 as a circumstance penalty to all checks that apply to ACP.
Magical Affinity: when making a caster level check, she makes it as if she were 1 level higher than she actually is in the class that she casts the spell (or if N/A, her highest spellcasting level).
Women’s work: +1 Gender bonus to all Craft (clothing, weave), Diplomacy, Heal, Knowledge (local, nature), Perform (poetry, vocal), Profession (child-rearing, cleaning, cooking, herbalism), Psicraft, Search, Sense Motive, Spellcraft checks.
These skills (except for Craft, Diplomacy, Heal, Search, Sense Motive, Spellcraft) must be trained to enjoy the bonus.

Males
Ability adjustments: +1 Str., –1 Cha.
Ability adjustments do not apply to Dwarfs, Orcs, Golblinoids, & monsters.
Due to overbearing prejudice, males suffer a –1 to Diplomacy, Gather Info., Search, Will checks vs. charm magic.
Men’s work: +1 Gender bonus to all Appraise, Concentration, Craft (alchemy, armorsmithing, bowyer/fletcher, leatherworking, weaponsmithing, woodworking), Disable Device, Intimidate, Knowledge (arcana, arch./eng., dungeoneering, geography, psionic, the planes), Open Lock, Perform (percussion), Profession (farming, fishing, hunting, mining, sailing), Ride (local mode only: aerial, aquatic, overland), Survival (local mode only: arctic, temperaturate, desert), Use Magic Device, Use Psionic Device checks.
These skills (except for Appraise, Concentration, Craft, Intimidate, Survival) must be trained to enjoy the bonus.

Characters acquiring ranks in skills of the opposite gender treat those skills as if they were cross-classed for the first rank (must spend 1 extra skill point to acquire a rank). If the skill is already cross-classed, it is treated as double cross-classed (must spend 2 extra skill points to acquire a rank). If learning the skill from someone without a gender bias, these extra costs do not apply.






Attn. divine chars.: I have tight restrictions on the Atonement spell, so act out of char. at your character's risk.

Optional Rule
Turn Undead
Turning undead is a standard action that deals 1d6 damage/cleric level to all undead within 30’ of the cleric. The affected undead get a Will save (DC 10+ cleric level +
Cha. modifier) for half damage. (Complete Divine, pg. 87)

Magic vs. Psionics
Psionics is similar to magic, but not quite the same. Therefore targets get +50% SR/PS (aka. magic resistance or psionic resistance) to the effect. (ex.: a char. under the effect of a hold person spell becomes the target of a control body manifestation, or a char. under the effect of an inertial armor manifestation becomes the target of a magic missile spell) the first example has an extra chance of complete failure, the second results in half damage.

Variations
Empathic Feedback
Damage dealt to target exactly matches damage dealt to you, so energy resistance/DR and vulnerabilities do apply. (EPH, pg. 98)

Vampiric Touch
Vampires in my game do not have an innate energy drain attack. Thus, I am renaming this spell Siphon Health
HP gain up to your current max. is permanent healing. Extra above that is temporary as per the spell. (PHB, pg. 298)

Awaken
This spell has a casting time of 1 hour, and a duration of 1 min./caster lvl. (PHB, pg. 202)


New Spells
Healing & Inflicting are Good & Evil acts, respectively, so clerics of evil deities or evil chars. do not have access to cure spells. Instead, I have devised an alternate spell that evil (and sometimes neutral) chars. use:

Send Light Wounds
Necromancy
Level: Brd 1, Clr 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creatures touched
Duration: 3 rounds; see text
Saving Throw: Will.
Spell Resistance: Yes

When laying your hand upon a living creature, you cure 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5) and inflicts half the amount (rounded down) on another creature. The victim recieveing damage must be the same basic type (ie humanoid to humanoid, 4-legged mammal to 4-legged mammal, fish to fish) and the same size catagory. If the victim is dead or undead, it must be cadaverous and in good enough condition to receive the damage. If the victim is unwilling to receive the damage, you must succeed on a melee touch attack.
The healed creature can’t gain more than his max. HP. If you fail to make a successful melee touch attack or disperse the damage on a willing victim within 3 rounds, the caster takes the damage (no saving throw).


This is a variation of the Cure spells, so just replace the word "cure" with "send," and you have the same effect. With a little something extra.

Spellcasters begin play with access to the PC's choice of the maximum number of spells/day+2 of each level the PC can cast.

Adding spells to one's repertoire:
Arcane: Study a scroll or spellbook or tutor for 1 hr./spell level
Divine: Study a scroll or scripture or tutor for 1 hr./spell level
(must share the same or very similar faith)
Bard: Study a songbook or tutor for 1 hr./spell level
Sorcerer: Think about magic or discuss with a sorcerer tutor for 1 hr./spell level
(Meditative composition is effective only once/1d4+1 in-game months, and only for Spell Levels 3<)
(see learn spell checks in the right column, pg. 178 and pg. 180 of PHB)
If applicable, add a synergy bonus (1/2 ranks, rounded down for Knowlege (Arcane or Religion) to the check.

Upon first casting, there is a 30% chance of spell failure, decreasing by 10% with each casting. This penalty stacks with all other spell failure chances.
If the spell fails from one of these castings, make another learn spell check to decrease the failure chance.

Adding psionic powers to one's repertoire: as Sorcerer
Upon first manifesting, there is a +30% cost of PSPs (min. 1 PSP), decreasing by 10% with each manifesting.

Psionic chars. may "forget" powers (permanently remove from one's powers list) through the voluntary submission to the Apopsi power (pg. 76 of the Expanded Psionics) to learn other powers. Chars. regretting this choice, or the power was too effective may submit to the Psychic Chirurgery or Reality Revison powers (pgs. 126 and 128 respectively, of the Expanded Psionics)

1-handed Spellcasting
If a spell has a somatic component, casting with only one hand suffers a spell failure of 10%/effective spell level.
0-level spells at 5%.
Casters using the Still Spell feat or an effect that duplicates that feat does not suffer this penalty



Technology
Smoke powder
Smoke powder does exist but it is so volatile and unstable that it is nearly impossibly to use effectively. Still, there those (mainly gnomes) who try. There are usually not enough remains to fill even a trinket box.


Skills
Autohypnosis (see pg 36 of the Expanded Psionics) is replaced with Hypnosis.
The skill works the same, but can be used on others as well. When used in this way, the subject's Wis. mod. is applied to the DC, not the skill user's.

Ride
Different modes of travel (aerial, aquatic, overland) require different commands and concentration.There is a synergy bonus for any other mode.

Survival
Different climates require different training. Each climate (arctic, temperate/tropical, desert) must be learned separately. There is a synergy bonus for adjacent temperatures.

Swim
This skill cannot be used untrained.

Equipment
Divine chars. only:
min. tithe: 10% [(pref. 20%) more is xp gravy, less is acceptable with good excuse, and not make a habit of it.
3 consecutive or 6 non-consecutive min. tithes will offend deity
atone, convert, or multi-class.

Chars. using armor and clothing must be the same size catagory of the char. it was crafted for to use. They must be within 25 lbs. and 3" to wear comfortably. 26 lbs. - 50 lbs. and/or 4" - 6" difference doubles the ACP (min. -1). More than 50 lbs. and/or 6" difference is not usable by that char.

Free Starting Equipment (not including multi-classed)
All characters receive 1 Traveler's Outfit.

Certain characters receive 1 Class Tool (common):
Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, Dragon Shaman, Psionic Warrior: Simple or Martial Lt. Melee Wpn.
Marshal: Battle Standard
Bard: Musical Instrument or Poet's tools (quill stylus, ink well, and parchment) or Disguise kit
Beguiler: Spellbook or Disguise kit
Cleric, Paladin, Blackguard: Wdn. Un/Holy Symbol
Druid: Animal Companion feed (1 day)
Duskblade: Simple or Martial Lt. Melee Wpn. or Spellbook
Psionicist: A crystal capable of being crafted into a psicrystal
Rogue: Thieves' tools or Disguise kit
Wizard: Spellbook

Critical rolls
Optional rule: A natural 20 on a d20 gets +10. A natural 1 on a d20 gets –10. This does not apply to threat range, only 1 and 20.
Optional rule: A natural 20 on a d20 must be confirmed critical with a 2nd attack roll.
Optional rule: A natural 20 on a d20 that has been confirmed critical and a 3rd successful attack roll is an instant kill.

Optional rule: A natural 1 on a d20 must be confirmed critical with a DC 10 Dex. check. If successful, attacker fumbles the weapon. Weapons that can not be disarmed automatically fail this check. Check failure indicates a strike on an ally (roll to hit ally). If no allies in range, attacker strikes self (roll to hit self with -4 to hit). Successful friendly-fire results in half damage.

Optional rule: A helmet provides an armor bonus to Crit. confirmation rolls as per the shield entries on table 7-6 on pg. 123 of the PHB.
Replace wood with leather, and small, large, tower shields with half-cap, open-face, great helm.
Helmet ACP applies to spot, listen checks only. Great helm ACP is -3.





Psionics:
To recharge daily PSPs, the char. must meditate 5 min./psionic lvl.
If the char. is disturbed before meditation is complete, s/he must begin again.
If 15+ ranks in Concentration, halve this time (round up to the next whole min.).
Psionic chars. can recharge only after sleeping 8 hrs.

Ninjas (see pg. 5-10 of the Complete Adventurer) are not allowed.
refer to this entry only for non-game mechanics of the char.

at least 3 Prestige Classes (Ghost-Faced Killer, Poison Fist, Weightless Foot) may be considered instead. (see Dragon Magazine Prestige Classes)



Knights (see pg. 24-30 of the Player's Handbook II) are not allowed.
refer to this entry only for non-game mechanics of the char.

at least 13 Prestige Classes
(Knight Channeller (see pg. 14-15 of Librum Equitis),
Gallant (see pg. 53-54 of Dragon Tome of Prestige Classes),
Crusader (see pg. 66-67 of Dragon Tome of Prestige Classes),
Justicar (see pg. 47-48 of Dragon Magazine Prestige Classes),
Knight of the Chase (see pg. 50-51 of Dragon Magazine Prestige Classes),
Knight of the Scale (see pg. 52 of Dragon Magazine Prestige Classes),
Purple Dragon Highknight (see pg. 74 of Dragon Magazine Prestige Classes),
Green Sentinel (see pg. 22-24 of Ultimate Prestige Classes Vol. 1))
Knight (see pg. 24-27 of Ultimate Prestige Classes Vol. 1),
Knight of the Griffin (see pg. 28-29 of Ultimate Prestige Classes Vol. 1),
Noble Defender (see pg. 34-35 of Ultimate Prestige Classes Vol. 1),
Officer of War (see pg. 37-38 of Ultimate Prestige Classes Vol. 1),
Silver Heart (see pg. 45-47 of Ultimate Prestige Classes Vol. 1))
may be considered instead.

Monks are banned.

[WinceRind]

Those seem like pretty sensible rules.

If he's basing it in Victorian era, or something similar, I honestly see no problem. Had he based it in traditional D&D setting that seems to have a gender equality, both stat-based and status-based ( unless there's some very specific things that I missed, any gender can be any class, female rulers exist, there are powerful warriors and wizards of both genders, same for clerics, and so on)

Sure, the +1/-1 stat thing really isn't worth it in gaming terms because it almost doesn't do anything, but otherwise, nothing wrong with it. Although in his place I'd make it vastly different. Instead of straight-forward gender-based stat modification, I'd base it on descent, too. A 'nob would likely have higher charisma and intelligence based on environment and education, and lower strength and constitution. A commoner would on the other hand have these bonuses switched. You could have it like a special template =/

Meh, people make too much of a big deal out of things.

Edit: And the specific rules dealing with unconventional females and clothing actually do reflect on the period pretty well. A campaign doesn't have to happen in a perfect everyone-is-equal-and-happy world. It's an entirely reasonable and historically correct idea to bestow bonuses and penalties to various skills or even attributes based on gender in settings similar to the Victorian era.

[Coidzor]

Or going casually on about how women have been raped and murdered throughout history within the first line of text about them as characters can easily be viewed as unsettling.


Edit: And the specific rules dealing with unconventional females and clothing actually do reflect on the period pretty well. A campaign doesn't have to happen in a perfect everyone-is-equal-and-happy world. It's an entirely reasonable and historically correct idea to bestow bonuses and penalties to various skills or even attributes based on gender in settings similar to the Victorian era.

And it's entirely reasonable for people to not want to play there. Especially in a D&D game.

[Dracons]

Well being in his game is different from what he told us. Women are pretty much spat on it nonstop, but still at same time, are demanded/ordered to stop the goblins or whatnot from killing everyone. But they won't get any glory or credit, and whatever treasure a female character does get, is immedity taken away because she a woman.

His idea of victoria age, is still standard dnd setting, but females aren't allowed anything nice. Males are expected and penalized if they don't treat women like slave and/or rape them at least every other day.

[Kylarra]

Those seem like pretty sensible rules.
This does presuppose that what you want to play is a chauvinistic victorian society. If that's what is desired, then sure, the rules aren't FATAL to the game, but on the other hand, if the players want stereotypical high fantasy, well...

[Coidzor]

Well being in his game is different from what he told us. Women are pretty much spat on it nonstop, but still at same time, are demanded/ordered to stop the goblins or whatnot from killing everyone. But they won't get any glory or credit, and whatever treasure a female character does get, is immedity taken away because she a woman.

His idea of victoria age, is still standard dnd setting, but females aren't allowed anything nice. Males are expected and penalized if they don't treat women like slave and/or rape them at least every other day.

Oh, so you're friends with one of the creators of FATAL. :smallamused:

[Raging Gene Ray]

Are you sure you aren't confusing his actual views of how women should be treated with how he thinks women WOULD be treated in a Victorian-style setting?

Some of the other rules seem needlessly complex, though. Healing is always good? What about healing a blackguard so he can keep on slaughtering? Even Evil societies and individuals take care of their own?

And if he's not letting have Good clerics cast Inflict spells on the basis that harming is always Evil, then he should also ban all the spells like Flame Strike that deal damage.

And Awaken is only 1 min/level? What's the point of casting it in the first place?

[Godskook]

So, here is a friend of mine who cannot keep players due to his house rules.

They are NOT the worst in the world, but just shows how he view women in general. Plus he has the most ....wierdest character creation system I've seen ever.

Honestly, the rules seem more clunky and awkward more than anything else.

The gender discrimination seems primarily represented as being a "sign of the times" rather than inherent to the actual genders, outside of the ability score adjustments(which benefit female characters more than male ones, btw, but *BARELY*). His labeling seems rather obvious in that regard, titling the sections things like "Prejudice", "Oppression", and "Men/Women's work".

[Rad]

I think he might have some misconceptions about the Victorian era, but am not sure how this should be representative about "how he views women in general".

Addressing gender issues in a game is, IMO, not a great idea, which is why D&D pretty much ignores the issue.

On a technical point of view, I think his attempts at modelling the effects of gender, fashion etc. to be... less than accurate. D&D rules are horrible for playing anything social, so any attempt of making house rules to be "realistic" about that seems like a waste of time to me. On the technical side, most bonuses seem hardly relevant to me.

EDIT: on the good clerics casting harmful spells: why they can't cast inflict light wounds but can swing a morningstar at you?

[Gan The Grey]

EDIT: on the good clerics casting harmful spells: why they can't cast inflict light wounds but can swing a morningstar at you?

It's a corruption of the force. :smallwink:

[Comet]

Making the game about a society where women are second class citizens sounds fine, lots of potential for good storytelling there (for both men and women).

Now, turning that sense of opression into numbers and statistics? Boring.
All in all, this sounds a bit like too much work for too little payoff (which, incidentally, is a pretty good description of 3.5 D&D in general, in my opinion). If you want to limit options for certain character types, you can do it without having to enforce some random "rules" just to show you are the GM. If women already have their property taken away from them and every man is out to keep them down, there's no need to give the poor girls some arbitrary stat penalties on top of that.

Other than that, I have a bit of a problem how the GM uses "realism" as an escape clause for this project, as have many others. No, it's not realistic. It's an over-the-top rendition of a society where things were markedly worse than these days, but not by this much. Use words like gritty or gray or some such but don't try to hide behind a wall of "Don't blame me, I'm just making the game more realistic!". Every element of the game should serve some purpose, like having fun and telling a good story. Realism, on its own, is not one of those goals. We've all already seen reality, games are about exploring something different!

[weenie]

Most of the rules seem pretty pointless. If you want a society where a woman in chainmail is considered unusual just RP it that way.

[Dust]

Swim
This skill cannot be used untrained.
This bugs me more than the sexism. I'm sure that says something, but I don't know what.
Anyway, this isn't the first time I've seen a set of house rules like this, and I'm sure it won't be the last. The ladies (and gents, for that matter) of my tabletop group wouldn't abide by the 'setting,' but then again, we don't have many scantily-clad nymphs or succubi or troll wangs either, and that's the norm for a lotta folks.

[Lev]

How can I put this? If your friend believes that women get +cha, especially in a victorian setting, then he is probably... a social retard.

I'm a realist, and I actually believe in racism and sexism as long as it coincides with the genetic facts that we crudely base them off of, but the FARTHEST I would ever go is:

Human Men +1 STR
Human Women +1 CON

I say this because I am treating gender as a subrace, where as a culture would just change the likeliness of a role, and would not have any tangible gain or loss and thus a female character who embraces such a role would then limit her own god damn stats with lower strength and POSSIBLY higher charisma or constitution or dexterity or intelligence or wisdom.

Social interaction with cultures who do not view you well is NOT A PENALTY.
He should be altering the DC of the culture on his side of the screen.

I do, however agree with the female armor rarity, but:
1) There's not a huge difference between male and female armor, despite what your friends video games, anime and novel covers tell him
2) Most armors are made to fit, aka built for you specifically
3) Price is derived by: Supply/Demand/Shipping, if your town makes no female armor, then you pay for shipping, if it has no demand higher than it's supply, there's no reason to raise the price.

[kestrel404]

All of those rules except the gender bias seem perfectly sensible.

For a victorian period game, the gender bias SEEMS sensible (if a bit overplayed). Also, women were generally not treated all THAT poorly - they were 50% of the population and even if they were heavily discriminated against, all of the men of the era had wives or mothers that they had to deal with and who would take revenge on them in subtle but very effective ways (bad cooking, or poisoned food in the extreme case is just one example) if they acted like real jerks to them or others.

Your description of how women are actually treated is completely unreasonable for a period game. First, the women would NEVER be allowed within a mile of actual monsters - they're generally considered too weak and vulnerable to put up a fight against such things anyway. Of course, if you're PLAYING a woman-warrior type and actively go out seeking monsters to fight, you'll probably be treated as insane, foolish, childish or some combination of those. Any contributions you make to the actual fight would be ignored/downplayed and you will have to actively push for even a lesser portion of any treasure acquired.

This would actually be less of an issue if you were a widow (assuming your GM is reasonable). As a man's widow, you culturally inherit a lot of the legal rights as your husband (yes, the laws really did treat women completely differently from men before the whole women's rights movement). Then you could at least argue for a fair share of the treasure - to take care of the children. Even if you don't have children, that was the polite way of demanding 'equality' for women. It doesn't make sense, but a lot of cultural niceties don't make sense.

If you GM is treating ALL women in the gaming world like footsoldier-slaves, then he's a chauvenist and should probably get a few stern talkings to (and if that makes no difference, he's probably not worth talking to).

If your GM is JUST treating PCs that way, then you're probably running against the grain of cultural biases - it's just another RP challenge that you'll have to overcome. The way that MOST women of that era overcame that was either by being so much better than the men around them that they HAD to be acknowledges (very rare), or by using a literal 'front-man' who pretended to have control over the woman while she really ran the show, but still pretended to be the weak-willed daisy. Such front-men were invariably 'jealous', unwilling to allow other men to boss their 'property' around, and in public were often more vicious to their woman than the average (though not enough so to actually cause damage). This caused sympathy for the woman more than anything else in those around her, and generally got her a lot more freedom than she could otherwise expect.

Hope that helps.

[Lev]

Any contributions you make to the actual fight would be ignored/downplayed and you will have to actively push for even a lesser portion of any treasure acquired.
Adventurers are "different".
http://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/sherlock_holmes_adler.jpg

[kalkyrie]

Reading this, I have a sudden urge to play a Tier 1 CN female wizard, and single-handedly burn down cities.

[Lev]

Reading this, I have a sudden urge to play a Tier 1 CN female wizard, and single-handedly burn down cities.
Make it a drow.

[pffh]

Reading this, I have a sudden urge to play a Tier 1 CN female wizard, and single-handedly burn down cities.

I'd also make her a black widow type character. Let's see how the world handles an all powerful woman that seduces (charm/dominate) leaders, kills them, teleports away and if someone tries to stop her goes all incantrix/initiate of the sevenfold veil on them.

[AstralFire]

I'd also make her a black widow type character. Let's see how the world handles an all powerful woman that seduces (charm/dominate) leaders, kills them, teleports away and if someone tries to stop her goes all incantrix/initiate of the sevenfold veil on them.

No. No. Please. We can do empowered deadly female without making her a seducer. Please.

[hamishspence]

No. No. Please. We can do empowered deadly female without making her a seducer. Please.

What about a seducer that never gets physical? Seduction to the side of evil, that is.

Something like a female counterpart of Palpatine (especially as written in the EU, and the Revenge of the Sith novelization).

[pffh]

No. No. Please. We can do empowered deadly female without making her a seducer. Please.

Well he specified that world was sexually repressed so I went with an openly sexual woman that can't be forced to hide it by anyone.

[hamishspence]

You can have that without them using it as a tool to various ends.

A person who only sleeps with those they truly respect- and never uses it as a weapon- could still be very sensual.

[AstralFire]

Well he specified that world was sexually repressed so I went with an openly sexual woman that can't be forced to hide it by anyone.

Many of the most famous works of eroticism come out of that era as well. Repression causes extremes.

[Greenish]

Fumble rules, institutional chauvinism, way over-detailed loot, knights banned for no apparent reason, but you know what sticks to my eye most?

This:
“proper female clothing.” [ex. Ankle or half calf-length dresses and skirts, blouse, corset with veil and parasol/umbrella (wealthy only), high-heeled shoes (except on farms and ranchland)] (While wearing such clothing females get a –1 Armor Check Penalty. ACP for female clothing is doubled for riding but not swimming.I'd like to see him swimming in an ankle-length dress. :smallamused:

[Lev]

Fumble rules, institutional chauvinism, way over-detailed loot, knights banned for no apparent reason, but you know what sticks to my eye most?

This:I'd like to see him swimming in an ankle-length dress. :smallamused:

Or trying to do anything that requires breathing in a corset.

[Tyndmyr]

Ugh. This is terrible. Str and Cha don't really represent that. What he should use are, at most, modifiers to the social skills if he wants to represent how women are treated in a given era. You make the setting, and within it, you have norms. If someone is trying something flagrantly outside of whats acceptable, they may face hostility, etc, and diplomacy and the like might be harder...

But paying 3x as much for armor? That's just ridiculous. And unrealistic, considering that historical armor made for women tends to look very much like armor made for men. Real armor doesn't show off your curves or boobs, despite what the video games tell you.

If he wants to make his games realistic, he would be much better served reading up on the history of where and when his campaign is set instead of making chauvinistic house rules.

[TricksyAndFalse]

Well he specified that world was sexually repressed so I went with an openly sexual woman that can't be forced to hide it by anyone.

The woman you described is using sexuality as a weapon. It sounds more like she's open about loving power than open about thinking sex is healthy. I'll go a step further and say that I think using sex as a means to an end is not a healthy sexual attitude.


[quoting a friend] "I am basing my game system on the Victorian era."


Well being in his game is different from what he told us. Women are pretty much spat on it nonstop, but still at same time, are demanded/ordered to stop the goblins or whatnot from killing everyone. But they won't get any glory or credit, and whatever treasure a female character does get, is immedity taken away because she a woman.

His idea of victoria age, is still standard dnd setting, but females aren't allowed anything nice. Males are expected and penalized if they don't treat women like slave and/or rape them at least every other day.

I'd say there are two components to Victorian-era sexism; the notion that women are naturally inferior, and from that, the notion that women need to be protected. We still see these notions in play today in some cultures. None of the protective attitude toward women seems to be found in your friend's attempt at "realism". Instead, your friend seems to projecting his own misogyny onto the setting, and trying to justify it as "historical".

[hamishspence]

A World Of Sexism can be fun to play in- as long as the DM doesn't try to restrict the players in the classes they can take, or impose mechanical bonuses and penalties.

And as long as everyone knows, ahead of time, what their comfort levels are.

The Conan setting might be one- general sexist attitudes- some oppression- but there are still fierce, proud female heroes- Belit, Valeria, etc.

[kestrel404]

I'd say there are two components to Victorian-era sexism; the notion that women are naturally inferior, and from that, the notion that women need to be protected. We still see these notions in play today in some cultures. None of the protective attitude toward women seems to be found in your friend's attempt at "realism". Instead, your friend seems to projecting his own misogyny onto the setting, and trying to justify it as "historical".

Yes, this.

[valadil]

I'm okay with historical sexism in games, so long as it's something everyone is interested in playing with. What doesn't make sense to me is sexism in a game with fantasy races. If there are orcs, dwarves, and goblins running around, who is going to care about the differences between human men and human women?

[hamishspence]

Terry Pratchett handled it in Discworld. In this case, the sexism had less to do with roles, and more to do with clothing.

For dwarves, all (male and female) were expected to follow the same role and clothing, and those who tried to become more feminine, were ostracised (at least at first).

For trolls, it was a bit more conventional, but even then somewhat minor- female trolls being discouraged from wearing lichen/moss, and being expected to only wield rocks, and not clubs.

Lady troll complaint "I'm naturally craggy, I don't see why I should polish."

[Assassin89]

I don't like how the skill system is set up. Doubly cross-class sounds stupid, and the set up of the system decreases the synergy for classes that depend on both male and female skills. Then the rules themselves are overly complicated for things like armor check penalties

[Godless_Paladin]

Those house rules are just ridiculous.


who is going to care about the differences between human men and human women?

I would think "human men and human women."

[AstralFire]

I think valadil raises a valid point. Humanity has a habit of building inclusiveness in one group by identifying an even larger outside group which is found to be more threatening.

[Glimbur]

Awaken isn't worth casting if it is temporary but costs XP.

The magic v psionics thing is strange at best. I'd run around under the effect of Charm Person and Psionic Charm Person, Mage Armor and Inertial Armor, and so on to take half damage from both magic and psi.

Send Light Wounds is just a good reason never to play an evil cleric. Or just use the Vigor line instead, whatever.

I'm unclear on the adding spells rules, are these in addition to or in replacement of normal rules for learning spells? If they're additional, sorcerers and bards get a huge boost. If they're replacements... being a spellcaster is less tempting.

Practice your spells before combat to get around the failure chance for a new spell.

1 handed spellcasting is just weird. Not a big deal unless you're a gish though.

Hypnosis is nice.

For tithing... what if I'm a cleric of a concept, not a god? What if I'm a cleric of the concept of selfishness?

Instagib crits are dumb but rarely come up. Fumbles are annoying.

[Godless_Paladin]

I think valadil raises a valid point. Humanity has a habit of building inclusiveness in one group by identifying an even larger outside group which is found to be more threatening.

When there's barbarians who speak unknowable gibberish and practice unthinkable customs (indeed, sometimes ones that lead to them being classified as something other than human), people still had all kinds of prejudices within their local societies.

Valadil does not have a point. It is a gross oversimplification of human prejudices. There isn't just one big "okay group" and one "not okay group." It is a rather more complex and layered categorization.

And in all seriousness, historical human cultures often differed from each other more than fantasy races differ from modern westerners. Honestly (and perhaps rather unfortunately) it is a rarity for fantasy races such as orcs, elves, and the like to be anything other than Humans In Funny Suits. (http://lesswrong.com/lw/so/humans_in_funny_suits/) And even if they weren't... well, see above.

[AstralFire]

It doesn't mean that it wouldn't happen, but I think it would definitely accelerate the process of equality within a group, and victorian era ideas on gender roles were still enlightened over many previous eras. They may differentiate more culturally, but - orcs are ugly.

[WarKitty]

I don't think it's as much a case of projecting his own misogyny as a simple case of did not do the research. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DidNotDoTheResearch) He takes the basic idea that a lot of historical societies were sexist and applies it without really working through how that would apply.

[Tengu_temp]

Seeing how trainwrecky the rest of this guy's houserules are, I can't help but feel that he bans monks because he thinks they're overpowered.


No. No. Please. We can do empowered deadly female without making her a seducer. Please.

Seconded. Most of the time, when a guy plays a femme fatale character, he doesn't do it because he wants to play a strong, independent female who doesn't care about social norms. He does it because he thinks it's hot. Which, in fact, spells the completely opposite message. There are exceptions, but they're rare.

[Mastikator]

Or going casually on about how women have been raped and murdered throughout history within the first line of text about them as characters can easily be viewed as unsettling.Not nearly as unsettling as history.

But on the other hand D&D is the gamist version of disney, so it's not strange that it doesn't match people's expectation.

[AstralFire]

I think he's saying racism and sexism are theoretically okay if they are corresponding to actual fact of biology. Of course, this is a can of worms I would rather knock than use Knock on.

[Tengu_temp]

Yeah, on second though, it's best not to go there.

[Spiryt]

I'm confused. Are you saying that prejudice and discrimination are fine in some circumstances? Or am I just misunderstanding you?

I'm confused as well.

Racism and sexism are beliefs that according to some ideology, one gender, or one (few) races are inherently "superior" (whatever the ack it's supposed to mean).

Just noticing that races and sexes are different has nothing to do with it, and is quite obviously nothing bad. :smallconfused:

[HenryHankovitch]

I don't think it's as much a case of projecting his own misogyny as a simple case of did not do the research. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DidNotDoTheResearch) He takes the basic idea that a lot of historical societies were sexist and applies it without really working through how that would apply.

Frankly, the supposed misogyny or realism of the setting isn't the core problem. The fundamental issue is that he's got a bunch of rules saying "choose this character and you will have all these material and social penalties piled on you, while the rest of the party gets along just fine." It's petty and dickish. The fact that he's fixated on sexism and gender roles just adds a nice buttery glaze of creepiness on top of it all. You would get the same warning flags if he had a page of houserules about how, say, elves are hated and feared and subject to a 75% tax on adventuring loot and mandatory ear-tagging and floggings upon entering a new city.

If you were doing this with someone you knew well, with a group you knew could handle things in a mature fashion, then it might actually be a fun, challenging roleplaying setting. But for someone looking for a new game, the entire setup screams "creepy jerk from the gaming store."

[Notreallyhere77]

Monks are banned.

The rest was bad enough, but this is the clincher. Truly, this man is a villain.

[Kylarra]

Interesting how no one here seems to acknowledge that there is sexism on the other side of the fence too. Double standards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoubleStandard) are pretty horrific for both genders throughout pretty much every period of human history.I suppose part of it is that the male restrictions, while certainly present are somewhat less restrictive than the female ones. Not counting the actual anecdotal evidence of how gameplay goes in that world.

[Fiery Diamond]

I'd say there are two components to Victorian-era sexism; the notion that women are naturally inferior, and from that, the notion that women need to be protected. We still see these notions in play today in some cultures. None of the protective attitude toward women seems to be found in your friend's attempt at "realism". Instead, your friend seems to projecting his own misogyny onto the setting, and trying to justify it as "historical".

This. Completely this. If the friend doesn't know enough about history to realize this, then historical accuracy cannot be his real motivation. Personally, I'm glad I don't know this individual, as if I did know him and he was within reach, .... well, let's not talk about what I'd do. Suffice to say that this DMs attitude toward women (which seems to be his escapist fantasy; and see the second post by the OP for how horrid this guy is being) produces a response from me that is something like this:

:furious::furious::furious: :furious::furious::furious: :furious::furious::furious:

[Killer Angel]

Well, many of the house rules don't make sense, but anyway...

1) D&D is not the best game system for a setting like that, it lacks the mechanics.
Practically:

Str and Cha don't really represent that. What he should use are, at most, modifiers to the social skills if he wants to represent how women are treated in a given era. You make the setting, and within it, you have norms.

Exactly.
Do you want realism? Use GURPS and pick Social Stigma. And that's even excessive.

2) I don't care if it's realist or not. It's not fun. It's the same reason that we play in a medieval settings, but we usually don't have nobles that can dispose of life and death of not-nobles for momentary caprices, and no one can object. The same reason our bad guys don't indulge in rape, etc.

3) This reminds me my shortest adventure ever. We played a women-based group (DM requests), without explanation of the setting, and then we find ourselves in a world far worse of the Victorian age explained in the OP. We didn't finish neither the first hour.

[Spiryt]

This. Completely this. If the friend doesn't know enough about history to realize this, then historical accuracy cannot be his real motivation. Personally, I'm glad I don't know this individual, as if I did know him and he was within reach, .... well, let's not talk about what I'd do. Suffice to say that this DMs attitude toward women (which seems to be his escapist fantasy; and see the second post by the OP for how horrid this guy is being) produces a response from me that is something like this:


When FATAL didn't kick in, it's creator just started to DM something else, I guess. :smalltongue:

[BRC]

Eh, I wouldn't play in a game with these rules, but mainly because there are too many of them that seem to serve no real purpose. You want to run a game where people are sexist, that's fine, but I don't like how he's slapped paragraphs of extra rules around, it just seems like needless complication. Some of his "Optional Rules" like confirming critical threats with a second attack roll are the way things work anyway.

[AstralFire]

She's referring to the gameworld, not the real world.

[Spiryt]

2) I don't care if it's realist or not. It's not fun. It's the same reason that we play in a medieval settings, but we usually don't have nobles that can dispose of life and death of not-nobles for momentary caprices, and no one can object. The same reason our bad guys don't indulge in rape, etc.


Eh, that all depends, but speaking about typical european feudal system it doesn't really hold... No one was "disposing" anyone else lives without reason, law or whatever.

Of course, somebody with more powerful position in society could screw somebody with low power and capabilities, but that's not really "medieval only" thing at all.

[Emmerask]

The houserules seem okayish, I couldn´t care less about 1 point more str or cha so I don´t care all that much about that.
In the wheel of time campaign the male pcs where pretty much the dirt under the females fingernails we had some good roleplaying in that campaign and overall it was quite fun (its a mixed group of 2 females and 3 males btw):smallwink:

Bottom line is the houserules while not accomplishing all that much are nothing game breaking, the gender inequality could be used for some interesting roleplaying, I would say there must be other reasons why he doesn´t get any players, maybe he is just not a good dm.

[Fiery Diamond]

She's referring to the gameworld, not the real world.

You mean the DMs treatment of women? I know. The DM is controlling the gameworld. There are 3 possible ways of treating the game (other than as just a set of rules and mechanics): a simulation, a narrative, and a fantasy (not like the genre). DM claims simulation, but fails at knowing basics that anyone truly interested in running such a simulation would know. Narrative? You tell stories you enjoy. Which obviously means that if narrative is the goal, the DM enjoys these things, which is fundamentally not any different from it being a fantasy in this case. Just because someone doesn't actually do these horrible things IRL doesn't mean that they aren't horrible things to fantasize about. While fantasizing about this horrible treatment of women is not as bad as actually treating women this way, it's still wrong. And ragefurysmite inducing, to me.

Edit: And if the DM can't keep these things out of his fantasies, he can have the human decency and courtesy to keep those fantasies private.

[AstralFire]

I was responding to Godless Paladin. He has a habit of posting and deleting.

[Emmerask]

You mean the DMs treatment of women? I know. The DM is controlling the gameworld. There are 3 possible ways of treating the game (other than as just a set of rules and mechanics): a simulation, a narrative, and a fantasy (not like the genre). DM claims simulation, but fails at knowing basics that anyone truly interested in running such a simulation would know. Narrative? You tell stories you enjoy. Which obviously means that if narrative is the goal, the DM enjoys these things, which is fundamentally not any different from it being a fantasy in this case. Just because someone doesn't actually do these horrible things IRL doesn't mean that they aren't horrible things to fantasize about. While fantasizing about this horrible treatment of women is not as bad as actually treating women this way, it's still wrong. And ragefurysmite inducing, to me.

Edit: And if the DM can't keep these things out of his fantasies, he can have the human decency and courtesy to keep those fantasies private.


Have I missed some posts?
Or are are you really raging about females getting +1 to cha and -1 to str and vice verse the males?

Or is it the gender equality? then you should probably never read wheel of time, your head might explode :smallwink:

[Godless_Paladin]

You mean the DMs treatment of women? I know. The DM is controlling the gameworld. There are 3 possible ways of treating the game (other than as just a set of rules and mechanics): a simulation, a narrative, and a fantasy (not like the genre). DM claims simulation, but fails at knowing basics that anyone truly interested in running such a simulation would know. Narrative? You tell stories you enjoy. Which obviously means that if narrative is the goal, the DM enjoys these things, which is fundamentally not any different from it being a fantasy in this case. Just because someone doesn't actually do these horrible things IRL doesn't mean that they aren't horrible things to fantasize about. While fantasizing about this horrible treatment of women is not as bad as actually treating women this way, it's still wrong. And ragefurysmite inducing, to me.

Edit: And if the DM can't keep these things out of his fantasies, he can have the human decency and courtesy to keep those fantasies private.

What.

Okay, look, that DM's houserules are terrible, but...

You're supposed to have horrible things happen. It might be nice to fantasize about a perfect utopia where everyone's fulfilled and happy and so forth, but that's not what people look for in entertainment. A good story has conflict. You have drama, tragedy, etc etc. These are all good things for a story.

And you're trashing people for "fantasizing" about worlds in which bad things happen? Really? :smallconfused:

[WarKitty]

Have I missed some posts?
Or are are you really raging about females getting +1 to cha and -1 to str and vice verse the males?

Or is it the gender equality? then you should properly never read wheel of time, your head might explode :smallwink:

Actually no one's really bothered by the +1 to cha and the -1 to str. It's more the overall creation of a gaming world that makes playing female PC's infinitely harder than male PC's, particularly given the OP's subsequent posts about how male PC's are expected to treat women. It's not a realistic model of sexism, or even one that shows basic research.

Edit: I still don't buy that it's related to the DM's attitudes though. I see evidence primarily of someone taking a few high school textbook lines about sexism as the whole of historical reality, and deciding "hey it would be cool to model this for historical accuracy" without actually doing some decent research.

[Tiki Snakes]

I think the implication that not only does he include rape in his games, but it is practically expected of the male pc's and so on, is a pretty good explanation of why he might be lacking players, personally speaking.

[TricksyAndFalse]

Have I missed some posts?
Or are are you really raging about females getting +1 to cha and -1 to str and vice verse the males?

Or is it the gender equality? then you should probably never read wheel of time, your head might explode :smallwink:

For me, it's the OP's second post, not the first, that has me riled up:


Well being in his game is different from what he told us. Women are pretty much spat on it nonstop, but still at same time, are demanded/ordered to stop the goblins or whatnot from killing everyone. But they won't get any glory or credit, and whatever treasure a female character does get, is immedity taken away because she a woman.

His idea of victoria age, is still standard dnd setting, but females aren't allowed anything nice. Males are expected and penalized if they don't treat women like slave and/or rape them at least every other day.

Edit: double sword-saged. Curse me for citing text.

[Emmerask]

Actually no one's really bothered by the +1 to cha and the -1 to str. It's more the overall creation of a gaming world that makes playing female PC's infinitely harder than male PC's, particularly given the OP's subsequent posts about how male PC's are expected to treat women. It's not a realistic model of sexism, or even one that shows basic research.

It might not be realistic, but it is an interesting game world...
I would have no problem playing a human woman in such a setting...
Heck I played a male gifted in wheel of time which is pretty much the same, well not the same it is actually worse because everyone and their mother wants to kill me ^^

The rest of the stuff which is interpreted in this is actually a little funny like:
Oh he wants a world with no gender equality he clearly is a rapist dm, a horrible human being and maybe the son of satan himself!!!!

Keep it down I say and don´t try to interpret a million things into it :smallwink:

@ TricksyAndFalse
I wonder if the outrage would be the same if someone wanted to make a wheel of time campaign ^^
oh okay the taking everything away goes a bit too far that post I haven´t read

[WarKitty]

It might not be realistic, but it is an interesting game world...
I would have no problem playing a human woman in such a setting...
Heck I played a male gifted in wheel of time which is pretty much the same, well not the same it is actually worse because everyone and their mother wants to kill me ^^

The rest of the stuff which is interpreted in this is actually a little funny like:
Oh he wants a world with no gender equality he clearly is a rapist dm, a horrible human being and maybe the son of satan himself!!!!

Keep it down I say and don´t try to interpret a million things into it :smallwink:

Second OP post is more what has people riled up. Rape and abuse in games needs to be handled *extremely* carefully.

[Emmerask]

Oh yes okay! the rape part should not be in a game I agree and reverse my opinion ^^

[Godless_Paladin]

If what the OP says in his second post is true, that is pretty heinous and twisted. Though honestly it smells a bit like hyperbole to me (and people seem all too eager to buy into it). I have pretty darned low standards for humanity's lower threshold, but I don't think that they would actually expect a rape every other day (or penalties!) in Victorian society and call it realism.

But who knows. I have not only been consistently impressed by humanity's ability to leap great hurtles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo0Cazxj_yc), but also their ability to crawl under the lowest bar. Even if that bar's burrowing underground, drilling through the bedrock, and poisoning the groundwater.

[Emmerask]

If what the OP says in his second post is true, that is pretty heinous and twisted. Though honestly it smells like hyperbole to me. I have pretty low standards for humanity but I don't think that they would actually expect a rape a day (or penalties!) and call it realism.

Yes, a bit @ the hyperbole part.The title plus first post of the thread are absolutely misleading (one thinks its about the houserules), the houserules while not great are absolutely playable and certainly not why he doesn´t get players^^

So how about next time, title: And he wonders why he doesn't have players.
first post: He expects male pcs to rape females once per day.
instead of citing 2 pages of house-rules, which are okayish and then 4 posts later come out with the essential problem he wants us to rape on a daily basis?

This way, after a bit of thought I am inclined to ask if you try to troll your dm @ op?

[valadil]

Valadil does not have a point. It is a gross oversimplification of human prejudices. There isn't just one big "okay group" and one "not okay group." It is a rather more complex and layered categorization.


It is an oversimplification and I am not a sociologist. However, I don't think you can claim realistic Victorian prejudices in the game, while introducing a slew of other races that would have affected the prejudices, but don't. Pulling realism from one aspect of society while ignoring the rest of it, does not yield a realistic game.

On a sidenote, I don't think D&D offers the granularity to make mechanical changes on this scale. Human females are weaker than males on average and they have smaller builds. This should not confer half the strength penalty of being a halfling. Maybe it should lower strength by 0.2, but that doesn't actually affect the game. Situational social stigmas are fine, but I just don't buy the stat penalties.

[WarKitty]

Yes, a bit @ the hyperbole part.The title plus first post of the thread are absolutely misleading (one thinks its about the houserules), the houserules while not great are absolutely playable and certainly not why he doesn´t get players^^

My only main gripe with the actual gender-related houserules is the clothing and armor pricing. It's really only upper class female attire that's particularly impractical. A long, loose everyday skirt has as much freedom of movement as pants. Practical wilderness clothing and practical farm clothing aren't that different. That and most clothing was homemade anyway, so it wouldn't be necessarily more expensive, although if you were of a high enough class obtaining suitable materials might be difficult. Of course, I don't know if or how he models social class interactions.

That and, like people said, armor was typically fitted to the person, something D&D doesn't generally account for. It's not any less realistic for a man and a woman to be able to wear the same armor than it is for the scrawny 5'2'' guy to pick up the chain shirt that the 6'8'' muscled orc was wearing and put it on.

The charisma check penalty I'd prefer for consistency's sake to see as a DC increase rather than a check penalty, but that's not a big deal. Really, I think the armor and clothing thing is kind of silly in comparison to the rest of the D&D world, but that's a play style thing.

[Godless_Paladin]

Realistically, woman's armor is not significantly different from men's armor. Particularly with a knight's helm on, you can't really tell the difference.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/RenegadePaladin/Fantasy%20Art/weararmour.jpg

[Kylarra]

It is an oversimplification and I am not a sociologist. However, I don't think you can claim realistic Victorian prejudices in the game, while introducing a slew of other races that would have affected the prejudices, but don't. Pulling realism from one aspect of society while ignoring the rest of it, does not yield a realistic game.

On a sidenote, I don't think D&D offers the granularity to make mechanical changes on this scale. Human females are weaker than males on average and they have smaller builds. This should not confer half the strength penalty of being a halfling. Maybe it should lower strength by 0.2, but that doesn't actually affect the game. Situational social stigmas are fine, but I just don't buy the stat penalties.You could use the secondary percentage system like hackmaster and add a penalty to that instead. :smallamused: Of course, HM has its own gender biases.

[Marnath]

I'm going to ignore the stupidity of most of the houserules, because you guys have covered that. The ones I really have to wonder about are 1-handed casting and divine tithes. I mean, really, what the heck? What is the logic there?

I like the helmet as armor versus crit confirmation, although I'm iffy on acp to listen and spot.

[Greenish]

but I don't think that they would actually expect a rape every other day (or penalties!) in Victorian society and call it realism.Well, FATAL does claim to aim for historical accuracy… (though it's not Victorian).
I have not only been consistently impressed by humanity's ability to leap great hurtles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo0Cazxj_yc)Haha, awesome video, though I don't know what's the deal with the guys near the beginning running in shallow water.

[TricksyAndFalse]

It might not be realistic, but it is an interesting game world...
I would have no problem playing a human woman in such a setting...

I've played in a game where my female character was from a sexist society. She disguised herself as a man, and ran away from home to go adventuring. It made for an interesting motivation to adventure, and it was a fun surprise reveal for the other players when they found out. Those both added to the fun we were having. But that was the extent of the repurcussions, and nothing was mechanically enforced. The homebrew restrictions the OP's friend put in place don't seem to be much fun.

[She was inspired by a 5 minute aside in my tenth grade history class (a little over 15 years ago now :smalleek: ) about women masquerading as men while serving in the American war of independance and US civil war. (googling "women disguised as men in civil war" brings up a lot of articles and images).]

I've no doubt that adding an element of sexism to a game can potentially add to the enjoyment of the game, but I think the OP's friend has gone overboard.

[Emmerask]

I've no doubt that adding an element of sexism to a game can potentially add to the enjoyment of the game, but I think the OP's friend has gone overboard.

It really can, sounds like a fun campaign btw :smallsmile:

And yes, yes he has, well at least if the second ops post is not completely over exaggerated that is, because normally those points I would have expected to be on the top of the list of the first post he made ^^

[Godless_Paladin]

Haha, awesome video, though I don't know what's the deal with the guys near the beginning running in shallow water.

Oh, that part is actually a hoax by a company called "Hi-Tec" that wanted to sell shoes.

It's sad that it's mixed in there.

[cfalcon]

I'm seeing a bunch of free pluses. Go hermaphrodite and reap a +1 to pretty much everything!

The Strength penalty has as much justification as the racial bonuses and penalties do. Normal games run on the assumption that you are dealing with heroic people who have already "beat those odds", a curious logic that is never applied to, say, making your elf healthier than the average elf.

But this guy is really effing stretching to map a sexist society into game rules. The list of skill bonuses, for instance, is flat out ludicrous.

I have some sexist societies in my games. Mostly that's a reaction penalty if you are whatever gender they don't like for whatever bad reason they have, and you'll have a hard time treating with such people depending on how sexist they are. Anything more than that, and rewriting the differences between men and women to be significantly greater than between humans and dwarves, seems absurd.

I'm also disappointed to see a +1 bonus to Charisma applied to women. That tells me that the creator is just plain sexist himself, and not trying to model a society as much as fit his view of things into rules. Women are more charismatic, but they have reaction penalties like crazy? What the hell does that mean?

Hey, fun experiment: show him about how Charisma is all about inner strength and sense of self, and how ugly characters can have 30 Charisma and pretty characters can have like 3 charisma. I bet he switches it to a penalty or drops it completely.

[Esser-Z]

This does presuppose that what you want to play is a chauvinistic victorian society. If that's what is desired, then sure, the rules aren't FATAL to the game, but on the other hand, if the players want stereotypical high fantasy, well...

Booo. Boooooo.

[hiryuu]

I guess I don't see a problem with these rules per se, but I wouldn't play under them because the person who wrote them seems to think that species = culture and that humans have only one culture.

[Callos_DeTerran]

The Conan setting might be one- general sexist attitudes- some oppression- but there are still fierce, proud female heroes- Belit, Valeria, etc.

Didn't read entire discussion but wanted to comment on this. The West was considerably more sexist in the Conan setting in the general manner of some oppression. Countries like Stygia and Khitai actually had women rising almost as high (or even higher) then men in whatever careers they pursued (and admittedly some careers were socially 'male only' but there was no mechanical disadvantage ((in the Conan RPG anyway)) to attempting those careers anyway, just role-play situations to handle).

...*cough*...I'll leave now.

[hamishspence]

Didn't read entire discussion but wanted to comment on this. The West was considerably more sexist in the Conan setting in the general manner of some oppression. Countries like Stygia and Khitai actually had women rising almost as high (or even higher) then men in whatever careers they pursued (and admittedly some careers were socially 'male only' but there was no mechanical disadvantage ((in the Conan RPG anyway)) to attempting those careers anyway, just role-play situations to handle).

I was thinking more of the setting in the novels- haven't read the RPG.

[Killer Angel]

A little OT, but still..


Eh, that all depends, but speaking about typical european feudal system it doesn't really hold... No one was "disposing" anyone else lives without reason, law or whatever.

Of course, somebody with more powerful position in society could screw somebody with low power and capabilities, but that's not really "medieval only" thing at all.

I admit I exaggerated, but I was thinking to things like Jus Primae Noctis, or the abuses shown in Bravehearth, Pillars of the Earth, Rob Roy, etc.
Also, even if rarely, nobles got a "free pass" for plain and simple murders, at least 'til the point it wasn't too excessive (Gilles de Rais?).



His idea of victoria age, is still standard dnd setting, but females aren't allowed anything nice. Males are expected and penalized if they don't treat women like slave and/or rape them at least every other day.

I missed this the first time
...it's no more a matter of strange or distort historical PoV... :smallsigh:

[Spiryt]

A little OT, but still..
I admit I exaggerated, but I was thinking to things like Jus Primae Noctis, or the abuses shown in Bravehearth, Pillars of the Earth, Rob Roy, etc.
Also, even if rarely, nobles got a "free pass" for plain and simple murders, at least 'til the point it wasn't too excessive (Gilles de Rais?).

Connection of "Braveheart" with history is based on few names, decorations, costumes, events, weapons, etc etc. may as well took place in Faerun. :smalltongue: :smallwink:

And I don't get the point about Gilles de Reis? Are you suggesting that mass murders connected with rapes, cannibalism, etc aren't present today? And that wives, neighbors of those freaks don't usually see that somethings not right, but generally don't dare to do anything with it?

And that powerful people don't abuse their power in many ways? :smallconfused:

Times had changed, so crimes and acts of cruelty changed too, it doesn't mean that people are "better" or whatever now.

[Tyndmyr]

Didn't read entire discussion but wanted to comment on this. The West was considerably more sexist in the Conan setting in the general manner of some oppression. Countries like Stygia and Khitai actually had women rising almost as high (or even higher) then men in whatever careers they pursued (and admittedly some careers were socially 'male only' but there was no mechanical disadvantage ((in the Conan RPG anyway)) to attempting those careers anyway, just role-play situations to handle).

...*cough*...I'll leave now.

If you want to see a somewhat realistic potrayal of gender bias and such in roleplaying, consider trying out 7th Sea. It puts a great deal of thought into such things, and in some cultures, like the Voddace, you have very distinct roles.

However, it actually makes sense in the rules, and they aren't onorous to play under.

[Coidzor]

Valadil does not have a point.

Well, you can certainly disagree with the point he made, but it's being disingenuous to say he didn't have a point or make one.


I don't think it's as much a case of projecting his own misogyny as a simple case of did not do the research. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DidNotDoTheResearch) He takes the basic idea that a lot of historical societies were sexist and applies it without really working through how that would apply.

And since he didn't do the research, what basis did he have to go on for the misogyny? :smallamused: The only answer is that which lay within himself.


Not nearly as unsettling as history.

But on the other hand D&D is the gamist version of disney, so it's not strange that it doesn't match people's expectation.

That's the point. We don't play the game to be reminded of how crappy it was. So, it is unsettling that this is the first line of fluff text the DM provides in his house rules on women.

It's not that D&D is disneyfied and nothing bad ever happens, it's that people who casually talk about rape send out certain cues that they are either bad people or they don't know a salad fork from their social graces. The players aren't stupid, generally speaking, and don't need to be reminded that rape exists.

[true_shinken]

I'm seeing a bunch of free pluses. Go hermaphrodite and reap a +1 to pretty much everything!

Man that's awesome. Yeah, whatever, this DM is a douche, maybe he is even a closet rapist, whatever. cfalcon made me laugh out loud, that's all that matters.

[Coidzor]

I'm seeing a bunch of free pluses. Go hermaphrodite and reap a +1 to pretty much everything!

Man that's awesome. Yeah, whatever, this DM is a douche, maybe he is even a closet rapist, whatever. cfalcon made me laugh out loud, that's all that matters.

Oh man. Me too, thanks for pointing that out. :smallbiggrin:

[Killer Angel]

(snip)
And that powerful people don't abuse their power in many ways? :smallconfused:

Times had changed, so crimes and acts of cruelty changed too, it doesn't mean that people are "better" or whatever now.

...the sad fact, is that you're right... :smallfrown:

Anyway, back to my original point: such a setting, is not fun or, at least, not suited for D&D.
Wanna play Victorian age, with a bunch of prejudices on sexism and races? play GURPS with flaws and quirks.
Wanna play modern / future, with powerful peoples, sacrificing the lives of thousands for more power? play Cyberpunk.

(Yes, I leaved FATAL out. After all, we must put the limit, somewhere)

[Emmerask]

...the sad fact, is that you're right... :smallfrown:

Anyway, back to my original point: such a setting, is not fun or, at least, not suited for D&D.
Wanna play Victorian age, with a bunch of prejudices on sexism and races? play GURPS with flaws and quirks.
Wanna play modern / future, with powerful peoples, sacrificing the lives of thousands for more power? play Cyberpunk.

(Yes, I leaved FATAL out. After all, we must put the limit, somewhere)


If you are talking about the victorian age (and its technology) and the future are hard to emulate then that is true, d&d is not made for those settings but the sexism part or the powerful people rule the world sacrificing thousands is perfectly doable in d&d.

And I don´t think the ops friend wanted to emulate all of the victorian age stuff, just the mindset of the people (which he does poorly but that is beside the point).

[SurlySeraph]

Throughout history society has been mainly chauvinist, uptight, and sexually repressed. I am trying to capture that realism here.

That's one of the least accurate sweeping generalizations I've ever heard. It's not even accurate when applied to the Victorian era; prostitution was rampant, erotic literature and art was quite common, and the extremes of moralism popularly associated with the era were primarily confined to the upper classes. Plus, ya know, you don't get crusading moral reform societies unless some people think there's a dire need for reform.

And I want to rant about how very, very wrong that statement is when applied to foreign cultures, because I just know he thinks the entire Middle East has always been Burqaland, every woman born in China before the 20th century had her feet bound, and on and on. But I won't.

The social modifiers are pretty stupid, especially tripling the price of "practical feminine clothing in the wilderness," at least if he portrays the various races anything like they're written. Halflings are nomads. Orcs live in the wilderness. Elves live in the woods. Do his female orcs all wear ribbons and lace?

Most of the other rules are bad but tolerable attempts to add flavor to the setting/ weaken casters/ add detail.
All in all, I agree that Power Hermaphrodites or pyromanical female sorcerers are probably the best response to how this guy runs the game. That or pointing out to him that it's kinda stupid and kinda creepy and more people might be interested in his games if he didn't do that.

[Killer Angel]

If you are talking about the victorian age (and its technology) and the future are hard to emulate then that is true, d&d is not made for those settings but the sexism part or the powerful people rule the world sacrificing thousands is perfectly doable in d&d.


I was talking 'bout the mechanical representation of the differences, both phisical and classist, between women and men. D&D usually doesn't care.
Of course, you can roleplay it...

[hiryuu]

That's one of the least accurate sweeping generalizations I've ever heard. It's not even accurate when applied to the Victorian era; prostitution was rampant, erotic literature and art was quite common, and the extremes of moralism popularly associated with the era were primarily confined to the upper classes. Plus, ya know, you don't get crusading moral reform societies unless some people think there's a dire need for reform.

And I want to rant about how very, very wrong that statement is when applied to foreign cultures, because I just know he thinks the entire Middle East has always been Burqaland, every woman born in China before the 20th century had her feet bound, and on and on. But I won't.

The social modifiers are pretty stupid, especially tripling the price of "practical feminine clothing in the wilderness," at least if he portrays the various races anything like they're written. Halflings are nomads. Orcs live in the wilderness. Elves live in the woods. Do his female orcs all wear ribbons and lace?

I got one: remember that most porn written before the Renaissance in Europe was targeted at and written by women because they were the big spenders and consumers of literary works and leisure goods and services. It was also the most common form of entertainment for the lady of the house to gather all the women and have group reading sessions of said porn.

[Marnath]

I got one: remember that most porn written before the Renaissance in Europe was targeted at and written by women because they were the big spenders and consumers of literary works and leisure goods and services. It was also the most common form of entertainment for the lady of the house to gather all the women and have group reading sessions of said porn.

O.o
I did not know that. Learn something new every day.

[hiryuu]

O.o
I did not know that. Learn something new every day.

Oh, I remember having read some of it in class once, and I was in the back row with all the other English majors and the teacher couldn't get us to stop laughing because between us and the instructor, no one else was getting it. It was probably the most racy, blatant thing I'd ever read, but to a modern eye it looked like they were covering things up. There was a ridiculous amount of triple and quadruple entendre, most of which were dealing with this noble named "John," and about how the lady of the house had to "sample the noble John's tastes" in all manner of places... to see where the noble John could most comfortably fit.

[Aquillion]

Part of the problem is that this is a world with magic. That would logically alter gender roles. Is a Sorceress who could blow up an entire city treated as someone inferior, who needs to be 'protected?' Will people treat women the same way when a certain percentage of them may be psions capable of blowing up your head with a thought? Of course not. The way the real world views gender differences is informed by factors in the real world; if you're running a fantasy world and want it to be 'realistic', you need to consider the effect that the fantasy elements have on it, not just selectively transplant parts of real-world history into your setting.

In a world where some women have a natural talent for sorcery or psionics, and where those abilities are rare and overwhelming (as they are in the D&D rules compared to normal people), you would see many women in what we would consider traditionally male roles, because no nation could afford to ignore female magic-users or psions as a resource.

At the very least, the idea that anyone would offend or criticize a high-level female spellcaster for her code of dress is comical -- this isn't like real-world female leaders, because their political power (like all leaders) depended to a great extent on conforming to the norms of their time, giving them limited political capital to enact change -- a princess who rebels against (or even simply shows signs of failing to internalize) her society's gender roles will see her power decline. That just isn't true for a level 20 Sorceress. If your walking nuclear warhead wants to wear slacks, you smile and nod -- even if you've got some male sorcerers, too, why would you offend her and risk losing a valuable resource over something pointless?

In fact, the rules he's presented could easily result in a matriarchal society, given that females are going to make better sorceresses. Basically, his rules are internally-inconsistent, even if he's trying to base them on real history -- it doesn't make sense to give females significant advantages in terms of hard power and then have them treated as if they are powerless.

This is without regard for the accuracy or inaccuracy of his view of history -- though I will note that it seems to be selective; for instance, I don't see anything about realistic wound or disease rules, which are far more important than gender differences if you want to make heroic fantasy realistic. The fact that a single sword-blow could be a career-ending and, very likely, life-ending injury regardless of how skilled or experienced you are and regardless of how much armor you wear is much more important to a game so focused on combat than whether or not NPCs expect you to wear lace.

[Marnath]

*snip*

One scenario you seem to have missed, is that there are probably wizard guilds, and they probably are all or mostly all men. Anytime a sorceress or whatever come around and is in a position to become a big problem for the established order, they go out as a guild and curbstomp her. You won't make it to level 20 if you died at say level 10 when you decided to start causing problems and 50 level 1-5 wizards decide you need to die.

[Greenish]

Oh, I remember having read some of it in class once, and I was in the back row with all the other English majors and the teacher couldn't get us to stop laughing because between us and the instructor, no one else was getting it. It was probably the most racy, blatant thing I'd ever read, but to a modern eye it looked like they were covering things up. There was a ridiculous amount of triple and quadruple entendre, most of which were dealing with this noble named "John," and about how the lady of the house had to "sample the noble John's tastes" in all manner of places... to see where the noble John could most comfortably fit.And then there's Shakespeare, that 'orrible, 'orrible man.

Though it's not like Victorian English had many words that didn't hold a double meaning…

[Aquillion]

One scenario you seem to have missed, is that there are probably wizard guilds, and they probably are all or mostly all men. Anytime a sorceress or whatever come around and is in a position to become a big problem for the established order, they go out as a guild and curbstomp her. You won't make it to level 20 if you died at say level 10 when you decided to start causing problems and 50 level 1-5 wizards decide you need to die.The rules don't say that.

But even if they did... how would things reach that point? Even a level 1 Sorceress or Psion is much more powerful than a commoner. We can see how real-world gender roles formed out of physical differences; there's no reason why those roles would even form in the first place in a world where magical differences tend to be far more telling.

Or, in other words, females are going to be the established order (or, at least, an equal part of it, depending on whether the +1 cha and +1 to caster level checks is enough to make a difference -- and keeping in mind that he's treating it as equivalent to the male physical bonuses, or, in other words, this is a world where females are theoretically stronger than men magically to the degree that males are stronger than females physically. But that gets off-course a bit -- whether these rules result in a matriarchal society or a more equal one isn't so important.)

My take on it is that we're not just taking Victorian England and dropping magic on it out of nowhere -- you have to be able to explain how your civilization ended up where it did with the things you put in it. If this is a world where females have always been as good or better at magic than men, most of the world is not going to have any real bias against female casters -- because successful civilizations and cultures will be ones that can use their magical might effectively, including powerful sorceresses.

In other words, you might end up with an insular patriarchal society somewhere with an all-male mage's guild that suppresses female casters, yes. But they're going to get curbstomped by nations with more equal workforces, because they'll be running on half (or less than half) the magical might that their population would otherwise produce.

[Marnath]

You're missing the point. Women make better CHA-based casters. Int casters like wizards are not affected by that. Add to that the fact that they are usually trained in academies or guilds or what have you, and also consider that if there are official wizard groups, they are going to be male dominated because all official power groups are male dominated.

This is all not to mention how pathetically easy it is to ambush and kill a caster at low levels with ordinary soldiers. Despite what the theoretical optimizers may have told you, casters are not gods.

[Coidzor]

This is all not to mention how pathetically easy it is to ambush and kill a caster at low levels with ordinary soldiers. Despite what the theoretical optimizers may have told you, casters are not gods.

Before there were soldiers running around though, there were people and sorcery is more basic than wizardry considering it's an innate thing rather than a product of some form of civilization.

So, early human society would have had a predisposition towards female sorcerers/favored souls/cha-based casters having greater power than others. Thus, how male dominated society with powerful magical institutions could have arisen given this bit being inserted into their prehistory needs to be justified otherwise it ain't internally consistent.

[Emmerask]

The rules don't say that.

But even if they did... how would things reach that point? Even a level 1 Sorceress or Psion is much more powerful than a commoner. We can see how real-world gender roles formed out of physical differences; there's no reason why those roles would even form in the first place in a world where magical differences tend to be far more telling.

Or, in other words, females are going to be the established order (or, at least, an equal part of it, depending on whether the +1 cha and +1 to caster level checks is enough to make a difference -- and keeping in mind that he's treating it as equivalent to the male physical bonuses, or, in other words, this is a world where females are theoretically stronger than men magically to the degree that males are stronger than females physically. But that gets off-course a bit -- whether these rules result in a matriarchal society or a more equal one isn't so important.)



Well that is not really a houserule, its a campaign setting decision.

Maybe being a wizard or sorcerer in that world does not only depend on stats it is a magic spark someone has or has not, and only very few females are born with it say one in a million.
The pcs male or female all have it so it does not impede the players in any way but it is one explanation one might go with :smallwink:

[hiryuu]

Before there were soldiers running around though, there were people and sorcery is more basic than wizardry considering it's an innate thing rather than a product of some form of civilization.

So, early human society would have had a predisposition towards female sorcerers/favored souls/cha-based casters having greater power than others. Thus, how male dominated society with powerful magical institutions could have arisen given this bit being inserted into their prehistory needs to be justified otherwise it ain't internally consistent.

A much more violent, nomadic, blatantly patriarchal religion comes along with a convert or die philosophy? 'cuz, that's what tended to happen on Earth. Now, this might be made more difficult because of the prevalence of casters like sorcerers and favored souls taking up the role of priestesses, but it could happen and would actually require a good amount of organization among the newer faiths.

...the irony is that by making women better Charisma-based casters, it's more likely that an egalitarian society with defined gender roles would result, not an oppressive one.

[Marnath]

A much more violent, nomadic, blatantly patriarchal religion comes along with a convert or die philosophy? 'cuz, that's what tended to happen on Earth. Now, this might be made more difficult because of the prevalence of casters like sorcerers and favored souls taking up the role of priestesses, but it could happen and would actually require a good amount of organization among the newer faiths.

Heh, yeah. You might very well have a society ruled by sorceresses. lets say the ruling heirarchy has 100 sorceresses and there is a standing army of 5000 men. Along comes a 25,000 man army with 20 arcanists. It would get ugly fast, but the bigger army would win through sheer numbers. Either the 20 pick the 100 off, one by one or they band together and have an all out battle royale with the 20 enemy arcanists....but then their army is completely without support while that's going on.

[Lev]

OP: Oh god, look- 'quote' "Go to the kitchen and make me a char sheet." -DM
Us: *facepalm*

[houlio]

Oppression: in 90% of the world’s societies females are looked down upon and patronized at best, enslaved, raped and murdered at worst.

I only basically read this and got angry at your DM's lack of anthropological know-how, but be kind to me and please point out that this sort of notion only is true if Earth had the same universal, oppressive, and patriarchal culture. If the Dm is going to make (or even say something that can be paraphrased to) crazy and nonsensical statements like this, he or she should at least spend time learning, oh I don't know, what they are trying to talk about.:smallfurious:

Sorry, if I can't add to whatever happens to add to the current discussion, except that Carthage must be destroyed, I guess...

[Coidzor]

...the irony is that by making women better Charisma-based casters, it's more likely that an egalitarian society with defined gender roles would result, not an oppressive one.

Uh, yeah, that's what was being said.

[hiryuu]

Uh, yeah, that's what was being said.

Uh, yeah, and I totally agree.

[Aquillion]

You're missing the point. Women make better CHA-based casters. Int casters like wizards are not affected by that. Add to that the fact that they are usually trained in academies or guilds or what have you, and also consider that if there are official wizard groups, they are going to be male dominated because all official power groups are male dominated.

This is all not to mention how pathetically easy it is to ambush and kill a caster at low levels with ordinary soldiers. Despite what the theoretical optimizers may have told you, casters are not gods.They're not gods, but they're valuable resources. The ordinary soldiers who ambush and kill those casters? They'll be vastly more efficient if they have casters themselves. A single 'sleep' spell could turn a risky and dangerous attack into a cakewalk. The bandit gangs with a sorceress to cast 'sleep' will survive, the ones that don't have one... won't. A spellcaster is still the equivalent of one of the buffest guys you could bring to a fight, especially in a 'realistic' setting where combat isn't constant (how many people actually get into 4 fights a day, regularly? Especially if you're in a larger organization, a bandit gang or military or police force or whatever, which can plan ahead and generally arrange to use its resources where and when it's appropriate, with backup as necessary?)


A much more violent, nomadic, blatantly patriarchal group comes along with a convert or die philosophy? 'cuz, that's what tended to happen on Earth. Now, this might be made more difficult because of the prevalence of casters like sorcerers and favored souls taking up the role of priestesses, but it could happen and would actually require a good amount of organization among the newer faiths.Except that on Earth, power comes from lots of strong soldiers. This means, generally, males (as you get more advanced weapons and tactics, the strength difference matters less, but by that point the social conventions have been established.)

In this fantasy world? Even a first-level Sorceress is a huge deal. Those violent nomads? They'll have sorceresses, too. Maybe not high-level ones, but a lot of them, and they'll use them well. This fantasy world's equivalent of the roaming mongol hordes will be backed by their mongol sorceresses. Especially since they don't need to stay in one place or build up libraries to produce sorceresses. There's no reason why they'd be patriarchal -- women in a society with magic are as suitable to doing the protecting (or the raiding) as they are to being protected.

(Sort-of. You might end up with a more nuanced view, where Sorceresses are powerful but too dangerous to risk. Still, the point is, it's hard to justify the civilization described above as 'realistic' given what's been said about the setting; and you can't even really justify something like an actual Queen Victoria, who was powerful but didn't really mean anything for the status of women, since unlike real-world queens and princesses, an experienced Sorceress doesn't have to depend nearly so much on social convention for her power. Sure, you could come up with reasons to keep the kind of gender roles described avove, but those are increasingly going to push you away from the Victorian setup anyway.)

[Gamer Girl]

Interesting bit of history....

The original deities of most of the world were female. With the whole idea that 'Mother Nature' gave birth to the world and all the people and animals and plants so she must be worshiped. This goddess was very popular in ancient Europe, and later became Isis/Hathor/Gaea/Hera/and such.

Granted males came along and reduced her influence and made men the king of the gods, but women were on top first.

And the interesting spin would be in the fantasy world the clerics of the fertility/bull godless would have REAL power. And even more so they would have the behind the throne power of things like fertility and long life. Even the war gods troops need to eat and have kids, for example.

[Marnath]

They're not gods, but they're valuable resources. The ordinary soldiers who ambush and kill those casters? They'll be vastly more efficient if they have casters themselves. A single 'sleep' spell could turn a risky and dangerous attack into a cakewalk. The bandit gangs with a sorceress to cast 'sleep' will survive, the ones that don't have one... won't. A spellcaster is still the equivalent of one of the buffest guys you could bring to a fight, especially in a 'realistic' setting where combat isn't constant (how many people actually get into 4 fights a day, regularly? Especially if you're in a larger organization, a bandit gang or military or police force or whatever, which can plan ahead and generally arrange to use its resources where and when it's appropriate, with backup as necessary?)

They're only valuable if you can control them.:smallsigh:
A woman trying to prove herself in a male dominated world is probably not going to submit to that control, so they're going to kill her rather than try to turn her.


Except that on Earth, power comes from lots of strong soldiers. This means, generally, males (as you get more advanced weapons and tactics, the strength difference matters less, but by that point the social conventions have been established.)

In this fantasy world? Even a first-level Sorceress is a huge deal. Those violent nomads? They'll have sorceresses, too. Maybe not high-level ones, but a lot of them, and they'll use them well. This fantasy world's equivalent of the roaming mongol hordes will be backed by their mongol sorceresses. Especially since they don't need to stay in one place or build up libraries to produce sorceresses. There's no reason why they'd be patriarchal -- women in a society with magic are as suitable to doing the protecting (or the raiding) as they are to being protected.

(Sort-of. You might end up with a more nuanced view, where Sorceresses are powerful but too dangerous to risk. Still, the point is, it's hard to justify the civilization described above as 'realistic' given what's been said about the setting; and you can't even really justify something like an actual Queen Victoria, who was powerful but didn't really mean anything for the status of women, since unlike real-world queens and princesses, an experienced Sorceress doesn't have to depend nearly so much on social convention for her power. Sure, you could come up with reasons to keep the kind of gender roles described avove, but those are increasingly going to push you away from the Victorian setup anyway.)

You're missing the part where only men with the gift of magic are going to be allowed to grow it, because women are "obviously inferior." It doesn't matter if the truth of the matter is that they're better suited to it, they still won't get an opportunity to show it.

Hard for women to take over the patriarch society if they're all burned at the stake as little girls for daring to have magic.


(disclaimer: I may be arguing in this vein, but I do NOT support the idea that men are better blah blah blah. I just don't see how the opposing arguement makes sense under these conditions.)

[Coidzor]

They're only valuable if you can control them.:smallsigh:
A woman trying to prove herself in a male dominated world is probably not going to submit to that control, so they're going to kill her rather than try to turn her. Except how did the world become male dominated in the first place if women are predisposed to being better magic users of the kind that is innate rather than learned from external sources?


You're missing the part where only men with the gift of magic are going to be allowed to grow it, because women are "obviously inferior." It doesn't matter if the truth of the matter is that they're better suited to it, they still won't get an opportunity to show it. You're missing the part where it's been said that this is part of where the whole thing falls apart in terms of realismverisimilitude and making sense.

[Aquillion]

They're only valuable if you can control them.:smallsigh:
A woman trying to prove herself in a male dominated world is probably not going to submit to that control, so they're going to kill her rather than try to turn her.But how does this world become male-dominated in the first place?


You're missing the part where only men with the gift of magic are going to be allowed to grow it, because women are "obviously inferior." It doesn't matter if the truth of the matter is that they're better suited to it, they still won't get an opportunity to show it.

Hard for women to take over the patriarch society if they're all burned at the stake as little girls for daring to have magic.It's not really possible to deny a Sorceress or a Psion the ability to grow her magic, though, short of killing her the first time she shows it.

And yeah, you can do that. Unless everyone does it, though? You're going to get curbstomped by the roving barbarian band that doesn't, real early in prehistory, since they'll have twice your magic-users.

People aren't going to go on automatic "burn the witch!" binges for the same reason we in the real world don't go on "burn the big muscular tough guy!" binges. We could, you know. You could in theory have a matriarchal society where any guy who grows over five foot ten or who looks like they're too strong gets executed. If the entire society agreed on it, being big and tough wouldn't protect them. But that society would be absurd and would never thrive, because -- unlike the presumably not-really-magical women accused of witchcraft in real life -- those big tough guys are important resources.

A sorceress is the same way. Sure, you can have cultural imperatives to do stupid things sometimes, but you don't usually see ones that directly undermine your military might, because if your culture holds that big tough guys are evil and must be killed, you're not going to hold up well when you go to war with anyone who doesn't share that tradition.

Gender division of labor survived in the real world because it does work, on a basic level, especially in a preindustrial society. (As industry grows and changing jobs becomes more commonplace, it becomes increasingly infeasible to have half your workforce locked up in one sort of job; and, sure enough, at that point suddenly more egalitarian societies start to curbstomp less egalitarian societies in terms of productivity, until every industrialized nation rapidly finds itself granting rights to women.)

Dividing labor up along our world's lines doesn't work in a fantasy world with the rules we've described, though! Even if you're a preindustrial society, every 1st level sorceress you execute or force to stay at home raising babies or whatever is another magical resource wasted that you cannot simply replace with a random man (this assumes that magical talent the drive to become a spellcaster is rare, which is the assumption in D&D.) Trying to prevent female spellcasters from developing their talents leaves your tribe weaker than ones where the develop fully, so -- very early on in prehistory -- those people and cultures that don't put their female casters to use are going to get crushed.

(This doesn't necessarily mean things will be egalitarian -- you could end up with a world where, for instance, female casters are considered precious but too valuable to risk, males are considered more expendable, and females who don't develop Sorcery or Psionics are considered worthless failures, say. But you're not going to end up with gender roles identical to where things are now.)

[Callista]

Yeah, I wouldn't play in this game. To get any kind of Victorian-era realism without having magic completely throw everything out of whack, you would have to make an extremely-low-magic world. I wouldn't mind playing a female in a world where sexism is rampant, but it has to make sense, and it has to be obvious that this is the setting and not the DM with the chauvinism problem.

In the Real World, in the beginnings of civilization, it mattered that on average men were slightly stronger and more aggressive, and the women often ended up taking care of very young children (this was before bottle-feeding, remember) and so were less mobile and less likely to take part in combat and extensive hunting. If one group was going to oppress the other, it usually ended up with male-dominated society. But that power differential is completely different in a world where you can leave the infant behind with a Ring of Sustenance and go blast ogres with fireballs, and your male friend's muscles suddenly matter much less.

So, thanks but no thanks--this shows evidence of only rudimentary world-building skills, and you need a great deal more skill to pull off complicated issues like gender gaps and gender oppression.

A highly more likely situation is the creation of a magic-using upper class and a non-magic-using lower class, with gender being a relatively unimportant factor.

[Tvtyrant]

Interesting bit of history....

The original deities of most of the world were female. With the whole idea that 'Mother Nature' gave birth to the world and all the people and animals and plants so she must be worshiped. This goddess was very popular in ancient Europe, and later became Isis/Hathor/Gaea/Hera/and such.

Granted males came along and reduced her influence and made men the king of the gods, but women were on top first.

And the interesting spin would be in the fantasy world the clerics of the fertility/bull godless would have REAL power. And even more so they would have the behind the throne power of things like fertility and long life. Even the war gods troops need to eat and have kids, for example.

The interesting question here is where you think the men "came along" from. They were right there the whole time, it stretches the imagination that suddenly three fourths of the worlds societies just decided to force women into the house at a date about 5000 BC when the Earth Mother Goddess began to be supplanted by Sun gods. Doesn't it seem more likely that the development of agriculture developed a division of labor, rather then there was some decision by "men" in the reaches of the past to oppress women?

I'm just saying that any theory that involves a world wide conspiracy should be looked at rather carefully, since humans haven't proven capable of it yet.

[Marnath]

But how does this world become male-dominated in the first place?


The DM says "My setting is based on a not very good caricature of what I think Victiorian era Europe was like. With magic." Easy. :smallwink: Yes I know that's a cop-out.

[Callos_DeTerran]

I was thinking more of the setting in the novels- haven't read the RPG.

That's what I meant though. The RPG has the same setting as the novels, the setting just gets a big info dump on it for the most part.

[Arbane]

You know, if the GM's not the sort to send grudgemonsters after the players for ruining his beautiful railroad setup, it occurs to me the only reasonable party for this game would be all-women (or all women and one guy providing 'cover') trying to take over.

Blackmail, enchant, curse, rob, cheat, manipulate, kill. It's for the good of all womankind. You'll probably be burned as witches, but at least you tried.

(At the very least, it'd probably make the DM turn some interesting colors...)

[Coidzor]

Considering my best friend was afraid Susan B. Anthony's portrait was going to try to rip itself off the wall and headbutt him when he was in DC, she might be a good archetype for a barbarian. (He also said the same thing about Andrew Jackson's portrait, so I don't think it was just him being crazy)