-1 Str, +1 Cha

Dungeons & Dragons is a game that’s based in fantasy, but there is a degree to which reality must be represented, lest we risk disrupting a player’s sense of disbelief. The problem is that sometimes, our perceptions of reality are based largely on personal biases, rather than actual fact. If not dealt with carefully, these biases may come into conflict with other people’s perceptions, and may serve to alienate players whose beliefs don’t agree with ours. This is particularly true when discussing game mechanics that try to take into account the physical differences between men and women.

In the foreword of the 1^st Edition Player’s Handbook, Mike Carr states, “D&D players, happily, come in all shapes and sizes, and even a fair number of women are counted among those who regularly play the game – making Dungeons & Dragons somewhat special in that regard.” I think it’s interesting to note that he separates out women specifically in this statement, almost as if he’s surprised that ‘a fair number of women’ play the game. Of course, it should seem surprising, when you consider the fact that the game’s mechanics of 1^st Edition actively exclude women from the game. Take, for example, the Strength Table, on page 9 of the Player’s Handbook. Female characters are listed as having a maximum possible strength based on their race. These limits on their strength scores significantly reduce their effectiveness in combat, compared to their male counterparts. This is most notable when you look at the differences between the maximum scores for female and male human characters. The maximum Strength score that a female character can have is 18/01-50, giving her a +1 bonus to hit probability, and a +3 to her damage adjustment. Compare this to the maximum 18/00 for a male human character, who gains a +3 bonus to his hit probability, and a +6 to his damage adjustment. When you also take into consideration the fact that many of the player classes in 1^st Edition grant additional XP to characters with a high Strength score, the fact that there are no comparable, maximum ability adjustments made for male characters on any of the other ability score tables, the fact that many classes require players to have a minimum Strength score, and the fact that females of some races (the female Halfling being a prime example) can’t meet these minimum ability requirements¹, you begin to see the preference that is placed on male characters in the game. This can be frustrating to female players, who may prefer to play a female character, but who feel that their class choices and capabilities are limited because of their gender.

Thankfully, the current incarnation of Dungeons & Dragons has done away with these gender adjustments. Whether a barbarian, a cleric, a paladin, or a wizard, a female character can be just as strong, wise, intelligent, dexterous, charming, and/or intimidating as her male counterparts. Nevertheless, the myth that women are somehow inherently weaker than men, and therefore there should be adjustments in game to their statistics, is one that persists to this day. For example,  in a thread on the D&D General message boards, called Yeah Old D&D Humbug Female Strength Scores, the poster states “I don’t think even the most rabid feminist will claim that females are physically stronger than men… so how about women get -2 strength, and +2 to an ability score of her choice?” Meanwhile, in a thread on the d20 Design General boards, called Rules for Males vs. Females, the poster states “Everyone knows that the average male is physically stronger than the average female. Does anyone use any rules to show this?” These rules may not be core, but the very fact that people are discussing the creation and use of such rules suggest that there is still an inclination to use game mechanics to further marginalize women from the game.

Now granted, part of the problem is cultural indoctrination. We are brought up believing that women are physically smaller and weaker than men. In fact, if you look at most societies, men are, on average, taller, heavier, more muscular, and have a lower proportion of body fat to women². However, there is some evidence to suggest that this is more cultural than biological. In Balinese society, for example- a society where neither men nor women traditionally do much heavy work- the physical differences between men and women are often so slight that European visitors complain about not being able to tell them apart³. Also, several studies have shown that while a woman’s muscle mass may not increase as quickly as a man’s (women can increase their strength by 50 to 75 percent without any increase in muscle bulk), a woman’s strength actually increases faster than a man’s when training with weights⁴. So while there may be differences between the sexes in our own society, it is possible that many of those differences are actually cultural, rather than biological. Given that, is it all that difficult to imagine a fantasy society, where women are equal in strength to their male counterparts?

Men and women do have physical differences, and those differences should be celebrated, rather than condemned. However, when it’s not even clear in reality, whether those differences are biological, or cultural, is there any reason to reinforce those differences with game mechanics? After all, if we can accept a magical world where creatures the size of tanker trucks can fly, and the boundaries between life and death are quasi-membranous, can we not also accept the rather mundane idea that a woman could be an equal in strength to a man?

1. Advanced D&D Player’s Handbook (1^st Edition)

2.Advance Data from Vital Health Statistics (2004).
http://origin.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad347.pdf

3. Hubbard, Ruth; Henifin; Mary Sue; Fried, Barbara (1982). Biological Woman – The Convenient Myth (pg. 97). Cambridge, Ma.: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc.

4.Hubbard, Ruth; Henifin; Mary Sue; Fried, Barbara (1982). Biological Woman – The Convenient Myth (pg. 95-96). Cambridge, Ma.: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc.