# males playing females and the other way around, opinions?



## barbarianguy (Aug 17, 2010)

What is your opinions on males having female PCs, and the other way around?


----------



## DragonLancer (Aug 17, 2010)

Doesn't bother me at all. I've played both male and female characters, and I've gamed with people who play either gender. Makes no difference to me.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 17, 2010)

It's fine so long as males playing females don't make them all slutty.


----------



## hazel monday (Aug 17, 2010)

It bugs me a little. It doesn't ruin the game or anything. I'd just prefer that players wouldn't do it.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 17, 2010)

I've got no problem with it.  

I note that often enough it doesn't seem to add much to the character, and it isn't often done very convincingly.  But if you want to stretch your skills, it's one obvious way to do so.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 17, 2010)

Old school!



> *Girdle of Femininity/Masculinity:* This broad leather band appears to be a normal belt used commonly by all sorts of adventurers, but of course it is magical. If buckled on, it will immediately change the sex of its wearer to the opposite gender. Its magical curse fulfilled, the belt then loses all power. The original sex of the character cannot be restored by any normal means, although a wish might do so (50% chance), and a powerful being can alter the situation, i.e., it takes a god-like creature to set matters aright with certainty. 10% of these girdles actually remove all sex from the wearer.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 17, 2010)

I don't want to hear about some dude's lesbian sex fantasies at the gaming table. Other than that, it's all good. I play about a fifty-fifty mix of male and female characters, myself.


----------



## Verdande (Aug 17, 2010)

How do you feel about humans playing elves? Or orcs? Or humans? Or vice versa? 


I haven't got any problem whatsoever with it. If somebody wants to play a character of another gender and act like a fool, they'd probably act like a fool regardless.


----------



## Boregar (Aug 17, 2010)

It makes no difference to me at all. I mean, if you are happy enough to take on the role of a halfling, a dragonborn or a thri-kreen, why should you have to stick to your own gender?


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 17, 2010)

hazel monday said:


> It bugs me a little. It doesn't ruin the game or anything. I'd just prefer that players wouldn't do it.



Yeah, this. I mean, as long as you're playing in a setting where the genders are treated equally, which covers the majority of fantasy settings, there's little point, since no character concept requires a particular sex.

I can see why a female might want to play a male in, say, Pendragon, or how a male might find it interesting to play a female in Ars Magica. 

But, e.g. in D&D? Better to stick with what you know how to roleplay best.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 17, 2010)

Personally, I find it to be pointless and...creepy.

Frankly, if one wants to explore being a different gender, I'd prefer they not do it in my game. Instead, I think they should just take a trip to Thailand...


----------



## EvilQAGuy (Aug 17, 2010)

In the game I DM I have a guy that plays a girl, a girl that plays a guy, and a girl that plays a dwarf that has an undisclosed gender.  

  My only problem is that the guy playing the girl character used a male mini for the first three or four sessions and it's thrown me completely out of whack, even a month later.  

  As a DM I play female NPCs all the time.  Some of those NPCs are recurring, and some stick with the party for a few sessions.  No one has ever thought that it was odd when I played a female NPC, unless I was wearing a wig …


----------



## Abraxas (Aug 17, 2010)

I've seen it done badly so often that I don't allow it when I DM.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 17, 2010)

I think everyone should do it at least once.


----------



## IronWolf (Aug 17, 2010)

Though I would prefer my players not play the opposite gender I trust them enough to do so if it was they really wanted to do.  Hasn't been a question that has even come up so far.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 17, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> Old school!




*snrk*

As a complete aside, a song lyric comes to mind these days when I see that phrase:  "You're not retro, you're *old*!"


----------



## Mallus (Aug 17, 2010)

It's fine.  

DM's/GM's are often called upon to play different genders, unless you run all same-sex worlds of fantastic, well-oiled gladiatorial adventure (which is fine if that's what you're into...). Why should it be different for players? While my group doesn't have any cross-gender PC's at the moment, it does have a _transgendered_ one; a towering M-to-F giantess who's like mountain made of fabulous.

My friends and I don't perform deep, serious, and public psychological self-analysis when we play role-playing games. All we're after are fun fictional characters.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Aug 17, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Yeah, this. I mean, as long as you're playing in a setting where the genders are treated equally, which covers the majority of fantasy settings, there's little point, since no character concept requires a particular sex.




I know of one case where this is untrue. There is a prestige class in a third party campaign setting where the character has to be female. Unfortunately, that's all I can say about it.

Put me down for the "it's okay as long as they don't go into unfortunate stereotype mode".


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Aug 17, 2010)

If it's got no creepy factor attached to it, then I'm okay with it.  Sadly, my experience is that males playing females often has the creepy factor going on.  That doesn't seem to be true of females playing males, though (again, purely anecdotal and in my experience.)


----------



## rogueattorney (Aug 17, 2010)

Philotomy Jurament said:


> If it's got no creepy factor attached to it, then I'm okay with it.  Sadly, my experience is that males playing females often has the creepy factor going on.  That doesn't seem to be true of females playing males, though (again, purely anecdotal and in my experience.)




Basically the same. A number of women have played male characters in my games and it's never been a problem.  Most men who have played female characters have done so without a problem.  But when there is a problem, it's the guy playing the female character.

It doesn't happen enough for me to disallow it out of hand.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Aug 17, 2010)

It saddens me how many people seem to take offense to the idea of working out psychological issues at the game table.  As long as you are not the DM, and you are not being domineering about being the center of attention, I just don't see it.  When I've had crises of faith, I've played characters with crises of faith.  I've played socially forward characters to work on my own social anxiety.  Just because the issue is gender related doesn't make it worse.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 17, 2010)

What is with the gender topic lately? I wonder what would come of spinning off a thread about playing someone of a different race/ethnicity. While there's some fun to be had about "playing into annoying dwarf stereotypes," it could definitely be an issue in a real world setting.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 17, 2010)

Charwoman Gene said:


> It saddens me how many people seem to take offense to the idea of working out psychological issues at the game table.




I think this is a relative of the office maxim, "A lack of planning on your part does not constitute a crisis on my part."  Your real-world issues may not be a fitting piece for someone else's entertainment.  Working out psychological issues often (not always, but often) translates into real-world drama, and some folks don't want that brought to their table.

With a set of friends who know you have an issue, and who are okay with giving you something like a safe space to work on it, it's cool.  But that's not everyone.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 17, 2010)

Charwoman Gene said:


> It saddens me how many people seem to take offense to the idea of working out psychological issues at the game table.



Are people taking offense? My point was merely that player characters don't necessarily represent the working out of even or engaging with psychological issues. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, or an axe-wielding transgendered Goliath in a fur-trimmed cocktail dress is just a, ahem, colorful character.  



> When I've had crises of faith, I've played characters with crises of faith.



On a related note... even though my current paladin PC started as a parody --of both the D&D paladin acrhtype _and_ the 4e marking mechanic-- I have to admit I feel like I've gained some insight into how unshakable faith might instill within a believer both confidence and joy. Luckily, this in no way interferes w/the parody.


----------



## the Jester (Aug 17, 2010)

I've never understood people who find this objectionable or who get uncomfortable around it. I find it interesting that often the same folks have no problem with their buddy Joe playing a murderous psychopath dwarf, demon summoning deviants or other, er, antisocial types.


----------



## Trevalon Moonleirion (Aug 17, 2010)

Doesn't bother me a bit.  I play women all the time behind the DM screen, don't see why I'd need to stop on the other side.

For me, the decision on what gender my character is largely depends on what I find in the way of inspiration for the character, be it a name that really grabs me, or a picture that I like a lot, or a miniature, if I decide to buy one.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 17, 2010)

Zhaleskra said:


> I know of one case where this is untrue. There is a prestige class in a third party campaign setting where the character has to be female. Unfortunately, that's all I can say about it.



Well, okay, I think there's actually also a prestige class in the 'Book of Exalted Deeds' that is only available to females.

I guess, there are exceptions to every rule


----------



## Dragonbait (Aug 17, 2010)

I It doesn't bother me at all. 

I've seen several poor examples (super-sluts played for laughs in a serious game and a guy who tried to 'talk like a woman' by speaking in a high-pitch voice) but those came later, so I knew those were not the norm.

I just assumed PCs played characters that they would find entertaining. I get caught off guard when people assume a PC is actually the thing the player wants to be (or want to be with). According to that, I really want to be a wise space octopus? That's total nons- hmmm.... Well, I - hmmmm....

Okay, maybe that is the case.


----------



## Stormonu (Aug 17, 2010)

One of the few characters I've played (I mostly DM) was a female witch (2E kit from Complete Wizard) and I really enjoyed the character.  I'm not the only one; in the same game, another male player was playing a female fighter.  I've also had several female players who have played male characters (the most recent being "The Saint" - a punch-drunk, african-american male boxer vampire from New Orleans who thought he was some kind of super-hero).

As others have said, DMs are often called on to play cross-gender roles, what's wrong with players doing so?


----------



## WHW4 (Aug 17, 2010)

We have one guy in our group who rolls to see which gender most characters will be. Can't say it really makes a huge difference in-game, other than I occasionally have to correct myself: "So you're going across town with him... er, I mean her. Damn."

I don't like to RP female characters as a PC myself simply because as a male I don't feel like I have enough of a grasp on the female mentality to accurately RP one, so I just leave it. I got no problem with others who do it as long as things stay PG-13 territory.

As a DM I have noticed I tend to gloss over female speaking parts or where a female NPC will give information. I do alot of "speaking voice" type stuff for male NPCs; I guess it really just relates back to what I am comfortable with RPing (talking about RP-skill comfort here.)

Our group is all-male, if that matters. My wife did play with us a few years ago off and on, and she never saw anything weird about it either, in case a woman's point of view would be helpful. On the flip side she has never indicated she wanted to play a male hero, so maybe she is inclined to stay in-gender for her RPing also. I'll have to ask.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 17, 2010)

barbarianguy said:


> What is your opinions on males having female PCs, and the other way around?




I do it at least 25% of the time, so I'm all for it.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Aug 17, 2010)

Philotomy Jurament said:


> If it's got no creepy factor attached to it, then I'm okay with it.  Sadly, my experience is that males playing females often has the creepy factor going on.  That doesn't seem to be true of females playing males, though (again, purely anecdotal and in my experience.)



Yeah.  I don't allow it when I GM, in either direction, but that's mostly because of the "guy playing chick" creep-factor.  I've literally _never_ seen it done where I didn't find it creepy or offensive.  (Yes, that's subjective.  But if I'm GMing, I'm not going to do it when I'm creeped out or offended.)

When you add in the "he -- no, she -- wait, are you a guy or a girl?" stuff at the table, and the infinite character concepts available within one's own gender, it's just simpler and better for me to disallow it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 17, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> ...the infinite character concepts available within one's own gender, it's just simpler and better for me to disallow it.




While I don't dispute your right to run your campaign as you see fit, there are certain concepts that simply don't fit one gender or another, so by ruling thusly, you may wind up effectively barring some nifty PCs from showing up at your table.

For example, many mystic traditions teach that your magical abilities are affected by your sexual activity.  Typically in such traditions, men lose their powers temporarily after engaging in sex...but women lose whatever mystic powers they had completely when they lose their virginity and never regain them.  Certain other, similar traditions teach that a woman's power changes (instead of being lost) at that point, sometimes completely.

Either way, a spellcaster from such a tradition would act very differently and would feel different pressures depending upon their gender.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Aug 17, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While I don't dispute your right to run your campaign as you see fit, there are certain concepts that simply don't fit one gender or another, so by ruling thusly, you may wind up effectively barring some nifty PCs from showing up at your table.



The good thing about "infinite" is that when you subtract 1 ... you still have "infinite."


----------



## knightofround (Aug 17, 2010)

I played a female barbarian once, she was a really cool character but I found that her gender didn't add very much to the play experience. She probably would've been just as interesting if I played her as a male character.

When it became clear that I didn't making the character for laughs as a "super slut", some players got uncomfortable. Its ironic, but most of the gaming groups I play with are hardcore evangelical christians. I'm not one myself, but I have a wide variety of friends, and it just so happened that they were the ones who got me seriously interested in D&D...and ever since then the D&D groups I end up joining are heavy-faith groups, even though that's not something I seek out.

I find it very bizzare that some people are uncomfortable with gender-swapping in D&D. Especially my group, because they've seen me DM female PCs all the time, and never a peep...pretty much all of them would include at least 1 or 2 female NPCs of mine in their top 5 favorite NPCs. I don't think the religion thing is too big of an issue because most of them are very laid back, and didn't bat an eyelash when I ran campaign worlds with multiple dieties, gratuitous sex/violence, offensive cultural beliefs, etc.

However, me PCing a female character did make them (both males and females) uncomfortable, so I haven't done it again since then. I went to college for a degree in economics, and I became a research assistant in gender economics, but gender issues in D&D still puzzle me. The same players do not have any problems with me playing a female toon in MMOs, because of the "avatar booty" factor.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Aug 17, 2010)

A someone who's played different-gender, ambiguous, androgenous, cross-dressing, neuter, shapeshifters, gay, straight, bi, and not interested, I have no problem with it.  I've seen characters played more annoyingly as a straight same-gender than I ever have any other way.

The players should play what they are comfortable with, and just occasionally they may be comfortable in a different sort of skin.


----------



## Almacov (Aug 17, 2010)

About half of the character's I play are female, and almost every guy in my group has played a female character at one point or another.

As long as they're playing a character and not an unsightly charicature produced by they're warped perspective on "gender roles", I'm cool with it.

It's also best if the rest of the players at the table aren't dungspitting donkeyhorses.

I did, however, play under a DM who ran a game with a DMPC central to the plot that was literally a lesbian stripper ninja. Mercifully, the game only lasted a session. Ugh.

But yes, some of my most memorable and long-running PCs have been female.


----------



## 1Mac (Aug 17, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Yeah, this. I mean, as long as you're playing in a setting where the genders are treated equally, which covers the majority of fantasy settings, there's little point, since no character concept requires a particular sex.






> But, e.g. in D&D? Better to stick with what you know how to roleplay best.




These points contradict each other. If a male and female version of a concept are indistinguishable, there is no sense in which playing an opposite-gender character is failing to "stick with what you know."

I also disagree with the first premise. Even in a world of sexual egalitarianism, men and women are different, dammit! Buffy and Van Helsing are different characters, and their respective sex constitutes a big part of that difference.

I've seen badly done cross-gender characters, but I've also seen it well done. The basic rule is "ban jerkiness," not "ban everything jerks do."


----------



## the Jester (Aug 17, 2010)

Zhaleskra said:


> I know of one case where this is untrue. There is a prestige class in a third party campaign setting where the character has to be female.




HA! I'll see your female only prestige class and raise you the EUNUCH WARLOCK!! You can't be fully male OR female!


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Aug 17, 2010)

Doesn't bother me.  As a DM, I have to play both men and women-- not to mention all the other bizarre things in D&D that are way weirder than (almost) any woman I've ever known.  If I can do it, why not the players?

There are lines, but they're pretty obvious, and I've never had to deal with such among any of my players.  Unfortunately, I have seen problems as a player in another DM's game, so I've learned not go there in my games.


----------



## Oryan77 (Aug 17, 2010)

I find it distracting and I don't allow it. And although many people would disagree, I find it unnecessary. Heck, I have a hard enough time playing female NPCs because I'm just not good at portraying women. I hate when I have to roleplay a female NPC. 

But then again, I'm all man, macho and stuff. I like women, but I don't like watching my male friends acting like them...even when we're not playing D&D.


----------



## Aloïsius (Aug 17, 2010)

The majority of my characters are male. I have seen both male playing female PC and vice-versa. Most of the time, it does not cause any problem. In a few exception, I have seen mildly bad players (males) playing annoying sluty female PC. I just take caution to not have those players in my campaigns.


----------



## Abraxas (Aug 17, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> For example, many mystic traditions teach that your magical abilities are affected by your sexual activity.  Typically in such traditions, men lose their powers temporarily after engaging in sex...but women lose whatever mystic powers they had completely when they lose their virginity and never regain them.  Certain other, similar traditions teach that a woman's power changes (instead of being lost) at that point, sometimes completely.



Just curious why you couldn't substitute male or female into either of those traditions for the sake of the game. Nothing above screams only a woman's magical abilities must be lost or changed permanently or a man's powers are lost temporarily- other than the fact that it may have been described that way in some real world text.

I have found that only with concepts that have elements I don't wish to explore or include in games that I run does it ever really matter whether the character is a man or a woman.

Of course you also wouldn't get to play a character that is the same sex as yourself if your character's an ass or you insist on including concepts that I find inappropriate for the group's gaming entertainment.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 17, 2010)

For those who don't think male players do a good job accurately portraying female characters: How, specifically, do you distinguish a well-portrayed female character from a poorly-portrayed one?

I mean, I think we can agree that the lesbian stripper ninja is probably not a well-portrayed female character. But I get the sense that's not what you folks are talking about.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 17, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> I mean, I think we can agree that the lesbian stripper ninja is probably not a well-portrayed female character.




Well, admittedly I've known one or two people that kind of fit that mold, but not many, and I run in odd circles. I've hung out with a kickboxing, bisexual stripper who played a barbarian in a LARP, but admittedly, she may not have been a well-realized, three-dimensional character. 

That's really the problem with fiction, actually. It has to make sense. Real life doesn't need to explain itself.


----------



## Nork (Aug 17, 2010)

I'm going to share my armchair theory on this subject.

Some people self-identify with their characters in a roleplaying game.  They view them as extensions of themselves, and a means to do things that they want to do but can't (be it the literally impossible, like throwing fireballs and fighting dragons, or merely things that are out of their personal reach, like fighting in a war or being a hacker, or have unacceptable costs or consequence, being a criminal is fun if and only if it is literally impossible for any party to be harmed, which is possible in fiction).  On some level I think the major appeal of RPGs for this demographic is a sense of empowerment and escapism.

Some people do not self-identify with their characters in a roleplaying game.  They view them as interesting character studies and hypothetical 'what if' scenarios, almost like thought experiments.  Their interest lies in "what actions do I think someone with this background and personality would choose when presented with this situation".  I think for this group the major appeal of RPGs is similar to that of reading a biography or watching a documentary.

While neither group is "doing it wrong", there is also the reality that there is a maturation process in people, and you live a part of your life where you master understanding things from your point of view before it really hits you that things can be understood from another, external, point of view.  Meaning that some of the people in the first group (especially younger people who haven't had the time to develop the pathways), just are not equipped to understand the second group. To their mode of thinking, someone with a character that is of a different gender means to them on some level that the player wishes they were that gender.  Which I think is typically not the case, and seemingly incongruent information distresses people, which I think leads to all the "I can't understand why someone is  playing a character that isn't their gender" threads you see for RPGs.

I'm not meaning to imply that one group is 'better' (or 'higher level' if you will) than the other, or that there is a quantum leap between types, or that a person can't or shouldn't shift back and forth between groups as their mood suits them.  All I'm saying is that there are different motivations for playing RPGs, and that the development process in people means that at some point they will understand one motivation without having achieved an understanding of the second motivation.


----------



## WHW4 (Aug 17, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> For those who don't think male players do a good job accurately portraying female characters: How, specifically, do you distinguish a well-portrayed female character from a poorly-portrayed one?
> 
> I mean, I think we can agree that the lesbian stripper ninja is probably not a well-portrayed female character. But I get the sense that's not what you folks are talking about.




I think that personally I can't portray a female PC/NPC and (therefore try not to play them) the reason for this is simple; to me at least. I'm a male, and there are fundamental chemical differences happening in the female brain with respect to the male brain that alter how you view the world, relationships in the world, and everything else in it. Yes, there are gender-neutral observations/motivations, but I just don't trust myself as a RPer to portray those neutral devices alongside the idiosyncracies of being a woman. RPing a man is just... natural feeling, so to speak.

That's not saying someone can't pull-off an impressive female character as a male player, or vice-versa - I just think it's harder to do simply because of biology. You're more likely to RP the filter through which you see the opposite sex, rather than how they see themselves.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 17, 2010)

WHW4 said:


> I think that personally I can't portray a female PC/NPC and (therefore try not to play them) the reason for this is simple; to me at least. I'm a male, and there are fundamental chemical differences happening in the female brain with respect to the male brain that alter how you view the world, relationships in the world, and everything else in it. Yes, there are gender-neutral observations/motivations, but I just don't trust myself as a RPer to portray those neutral devices alongside the idiosyncracies of being a woman. RPing a man is just... natural feeling, so to speak.
> 
> That's not saying someone can't pull-off an impressive female character as a male player, or vice-versa - I just think it's harder to do simply because of biology. You're more likely to RP the filter through which you see the opposite sex, rather than how they see themselves.




So how would you, looking from the outside, tell if someone was doing it well or badly?


----------



## barbarianguy (Aug 17, 2010)

Thanks for the replies everyone! I just asked since I thought of making a character that would be like the alchemist savant in magic of eberron, but I wanted some opinions on role-playing the opposite sex.


----------



## WHW4 (Aug 17, 2010)

@Dausuul,

You know, that's a VERY good question. One I haven't even thought about. I guess I just measure on a phantom yard-stick - it's one of those things you base on gut, for me. 

I guess you'd have to have a group of cliches or tropes already in mind, to call it bad. We can use ninja-lesbo as a bad example. That's an extreme one though - I'm not sure how to really identify what's "bad" in a more conservative case. In fact, I'd probably just go ahead and call something a "good" example simply because of the absense of horrible cliche.

Very interested to hear what others answer.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Aug 17, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> For those who don't think male players do a good job accurately portraying female characters: How, specifically, do you distinguish a well-portrayed female character from a poorly-portrayed one?



The latter creeps me out or offends me.  (You won't be saying that subjectivity is unfair, I hope?)


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Aug 17, 2010)

I've played female characters and have no issues if other players want to play opposite gender characters.  When I play female characters I know I'm not accurate in roleplaying any of the nuances of being a woman.  I play my characters based on their background and personality and play them as the hero that they are, regardless of their gender.  But the games I play in aren't hard character dramas.  It boils down to sometimes I think my flying, thunderbolt wielding hero would be cooler as an African goddess than a Norse god.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Aug 17, 2010)

The mathematical definition of infinity can't be used here as "infinite" is not being used mathematically.  The choices at the chinese buffet are infinite, but if you take away all the beef. I'll be pissed.

The vaunted "chemical" differences between men and women are less distinct than you think.  It's much more the result of socialization, which means that it is far from binary.  Saying more will violate board rules on politics and stuff.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 17, 2010)

Charwoman Gene said:


> ...The choices at the chinese buffet are infinite, but if you take away all the beef. I'll be pissed...




But take away only the _female_ beef, and you'd never even notice...


----------



## WHW4 (Aug 17, 2010)

Charwoman Gene said:


> The vaunted "chemical" differences between men and women are less distinct than you think. It's much more the result of socialization, which means that it is far from binary. Saying more will violate board rules on politics and stuff.




Well, whatever the source of the differences, they are still there. I think that's the big factor in how we generally decide what is good or bad RP with respect to gender, is all I was saying.

-------

Nork, I think you are really onto something. I'll admit I do alot of self-projection through my characters. Most of my characters are some little piece of me Biggie-sized to unrecognizable proportions. But I still know where the motivation comes from. Not so much investment in the character's longevity as just a very relatable comfortability with the character. "Of course I know what the character would do; it's me!"

Counter to that, the guy in our group who regularly plays female characters has always used the maxim "It's just a piece of paper." So, there's that level of disconnect for him I bet.


----------



## ffanxii4ever (Aug 17, 2010)

As a DM many times more than I play, obviously I create and run women fairly regularly, for a variety of different reasons.
However, looking at my players play characters, I let some (most actually) play whatever they want, by some I don't let them because I know that they will not be able to pull it off in a mature manner.
One incredibly... awkward and creepy experience was actually perpetrated by the token female player of the group.   Evidently her idea of playing a male meant playing an oversexed, bondage-loving pervert who had a sexual relationship with his sword's scabbard.   So... yeah, I only disallow certain people from doing the cross-gender thing, I don't do a blanket ban.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 17, 2010)

No worries on either side of the screen. When playing with a well adjusted mature group of people it isn't an issue.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 17, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> The latter creeps me out or offends me.  (You won't be saying that subjectivity is unfair, I hope?)




Not unfair, but not exactly enlightening.  Can you come up with some examples of characters you've seen that triggered this response, and others that didn't?

The reason I ask is that I don't see a lot of difference between playing a male or a female character. Some days I write down an M on the character sheet and other days I write down an F. It's mostly an aesthetic choice, and I have been known to let the dice decide. I play them pretty much the same. Some are honorable, some are sneaky, some are kind, some are cruel.

So it seems weird to me that folks get all tied up about whether men can "accurately" portray female characters. I mean, I'm sure there are _some_ biological differences between male and female brains, but no one has yet teased out just what effects those differences have, and it's pretty clear they're overwhelmed by environment and upbringing. The human brain is a very malleable thing. Maybe my female characters are atypical for their society, but my male characters aren't exactly run-of-the-mill working joes either.

I suppose it could get more challenging when wading into the thickets of sex and romance, but I don't usually explore my PCs' sex lives in much... uh... depth. 

(That said, you do get the guys who make super-slut female characters as a way to indulge their own sexual fantasies, and yeah, that's skeezy and I don't want it at my table. I'm here to kill monsters, wreck property, and save the world, not make amateur porn. But my experience has been those are a minority compared to the guys who just say, "Huh, I think I'll make a female character today.")



ffanxii4ever said:


> Evidently her idea of playing a male meant playing an oversexed, bondage-loving pervert who had a sexual relationship with his sword's scabbard.




A nice little illustration of my point. It's not just male players who create skeezy sex-fantasy PCs...


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 17, 2010)

Maybe I'm just *insane*, but when people are massive creephats I don't ban their characters, I decide _not to play with massive creephats_.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Aug 17, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Not unfair, but not exactly enlightening.  Can you come up with some examples of characters you've seen that triggered this response, and others that didn't?



I don't think so.  I've never been in a situation with a man playing a woman where the roleplaying _didn't_ creep me out.

BTW, I keep harping on the subjectivity thing, because I think it's the only truly good argument for my position, and I'm not going back on that except to tell a brief story:

I used to be heavily into MUDding.  (For you kids, MUDs were Wow without any graphics.  Yes, that's right ... no graphics.  At all.  Now shut up and get off my lawn.)  As a MUDder, I interacted with scores of characters, mostly male and some female.  Some of the female characters' "roleplaying" (roleplaying on a MUD, like roleplaying in WoW, was the exception, not the norm, thus the quotes) creeped me out or offended me, and some didn't.

Eventually I became an administrator of a couple of MUDs, with access to player information (for legitimate reasons, including social ones).  With no exceptions that I can recall -- admittedly it was 20 years ago -- the players of the creepy or offensive female characters were dudes, and the players of the non-creepy, non-offensive female characters were not.  I was able to, using the "creepy or offensive" test, identify dudes-playing-chicks with no objective knowledge of their actual gender.

Yeah, yeah.  Here's the punchline: I was playing a female character.  (I'd been given a higher-level female character and found that chicks got in-game help from guys.  So I creepily and offensively pretended to be a chick.  The second punchline?  Aside from claiming to be a Real Live Gurl, I behaved 100 percent like myself.  Nerds online, then as now, really, really like a girl (or "girl") who's into cyberpunk, D&D, and comic books.)



> The reason I ask is that I don't see a lot of difference between playing a male or a female character. [...] I play them pretty much the same.



Given that, why not play your own gender, _even if only_ to avoid the "he -- wait, she -- wait, are you female?" issue?


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 17, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> For those who don't think male players do a good job accurately portraying female characters: How, specifically, do you distinguish a well-portrayed female character from a poorly-portrayed one?




I just wanted to remark on this, I've seen a number of male DMs who have said "I play women(PC or NPC) badly", therefore I don't allow others to do it.  I find it strange to see their own failing extrapolated into: "i'm a man, and I can't play women, therefore anyone who's a man also is incapable of playing women."  I see some people trying to defend it with biology, a fools errand, and others try to defend it with IRL society.

If we've already agreed that M or F is mostly an aesthetic choice, and that most fantasy settings are egalitarian enough to mean your character isn't going to run into trouble for being one sex or the other, and a fighter is a fighter is a fighter, then I really suggest some introspection.

Why does a man playing a woman offend you more than a man playing a kobold?  Assuming of course, they're not trying to make a vampire-hooker-stripper-lesbian-ninja type woman.


----------



## rogueattorney (Aug 17, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> I mean, I think we can agree that the lesbian stripper ninja is probably not a well-portrayed female character. But I get the sense that's not what you folks are talking about.




Actually, that's precisely the type of thing _I_ was talking about.  

And like others have said, it's a creepy player problem, not a problem with people playing cross-gendered characters.  If I don't allow the lesbian stripper ninja, he's just going to play a barbarian rapist with Turret's Syndrome.  Get him out of the group and problem solved.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Aug 17, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Maybe I'm just *insane*, but when people are massive creephats I don't ban their characters, I decide _not to play with massive creephats_.



I must be just as *insane*, because just as I don't assume that people who want to play an Evil character are "massive creephats," or that people who want to play an adult dragon character are "massive creephats," I don't assume that people who want to play a cross-gender PC are "massive creephats."

And yet I don't allow any of those things when I'm GMing.  (Well, technically in my M&M game I'd probably allow the dragon ... )


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 17, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> I used to be heavily into MUDding.  (For you kids, MUDs were Wow without any graphics.  Yes, that's right ... no graphics.  At all.  Now shut up and get off my lawn.)




Oh, I remember MUDs very well. I was a developer on more than a couple of 'em. Heck, that was how I learned C++ syntax and object-oriented programming.



Jeff Wilder said:


> Eventually I became an administrator of a couple of MUDs, with access to player information (for legitimate reasons, including social ones).  With no exceptions that I can recall -- admittedly it was 20 years ago -- the players of the creepy or offensive female characters were dudes, and the players of the non-creepy, non-offensive female characters were not.  I was able to, using the "creepy or offensive" test, identify dudes-playing-chicks with no objective knowledge of their actual gender.




Interesting. I would expect a higher percentage of creepiness/offensiveness among online gamers, based on my experiences of how people behave online versus in person... still, it's something to think about.



Jeff Wilder said:


> Given that, why not play your own gender, _even if only_ to avoid the "he -- wait, she -- wait, are you female?" issue?




Like I said, it's mostly aesthetics. Wednesday Boy put it nicely: "Sometimes I think my flying, thunderbolt wielding hero would be cooler as an African goddess than a Norse god." But if someone has a real problem with it, it's easy enough to write down M rather than F.

If I joined a group where the DM didn't allow male players to run female characters, I'd give the DM a funny look and inquire as to the reason, but assuming the reason wasn't itself offensive, I'd shrug and make a male character.


----------



## WHW4 (Aug 17, 2010)

shidaku said:


> I just wanted to remark on this, I've seen a number of male DMs who have said "I play women(PC or NPC) badly", therefore I don't allow others to do it. I find it strange to see their own failing extrapolated into: "i'm a man, and I can't play women, therefore anyone who's a man also is incapable of playing women." I see some people trying to defend it with biology, a fools errand, and others try to defend it with IRL society.
> 
> If we've already agreed that M or F is mostly an aesthetic choice, and that most fantasy settings are egalitarian enough to mean your character isn't going to run into trouble for being one sex or the other, and a fighter is a fighter is a fighter, then I really suggest some introspection.
> 
> Why does a man playing a woman offend you more than a man playing a kobold? Assuming of course, they're not trying to make a vampire-hooker-stripper-lesbian-ninja type woman.




Just to clarify my position, I don't have a problem with it. 

As a player I don't do it myself because I feel I am not as believable in my RP. I use alot of in character chatter and commentary when I play, so it's not something I just gloss over. I don't have a problem when another player does it. 

As a DM I do tend to gloss over some NPC dialogue, mainly female, because again I feel I am lacking in the believability department. I do NPC voices alot also, plus my voice is fairly deep and I don't think I would want the evil sorcerous to inspire laughs from the players as I attempt to reach for those last three octaves with my voice, hehe. I certainly don't have a problem with players the playing opposite sex in any game I run either. Got one now, in fact, M&M.

I clarify because I most certainly don't feel that because I can't adequately RP a female to MY standards that someone else can't do so (standards not withstanding).


----------



## Umbran (Aug 17, 2010)

shidaku said:


> Why does a man playing a woman offend you more than a man playing a kobold?




Neither offends me.  However, I'll take a stab at the basic reason some might be offended:  kobolds don't actually exist, and women do.  There are still real-world people who have real-world problems with gender roles.  The roles of kobolds in our society have yet to cause any consternation.

The primary differences between humans and kobolds will tend to be simplistic and stereotyped, as even the multi-page document your DM gives you isn't a treatment in real depth on a whole society and culture.  And we take that as okay, as we don't have any real non-human sentients walking around to compare to.  We all know our attempts to do it will be rough, and no real person can take the rendition as mocking or insensitive.

Over-simplify the subtleties between the male and female points of view, however, and you are apt to cheese someone off, because there are real people involved, and real history in which some folks have gotten and still get the short end of the stick.

Non gaming example:  Nobody cares about the weak portrayal of Wookie culture in Star Wars.  As soon as they present Star Wars races that resemble some real world stereotypes too much, and you get a load of argument.


----------



## Mikaze (Aug 17, 2010)

I'm fine with it, as long as the players aren't going for stupid stereotypes.  Given my players, this isn't an issue.

They've only played characters of the opposite sex once and it went perfectly fine.  Two of our regular players were tied up with other responsibilities, so the four that could make it had to have a filler game.  We had the idea of taking the fleshed-out followers that the party fighter had picked up in the main campaign and having each player roll to see which one they would play for a one-off Level 1 adventure.  Two male players got female characters, one female player got a male one.

It went wonderfully.  By the end those four followers were more fleshed out than they had been before, the two male players with female monk NPCs had completely cemented the sister-like relationship between them, and the female-played male halfling bard was only more confident by the end.

It all comes down to the players(including the GM).


----------



## Aloïsius (Aug 17, 2010)

I think another question linked to the OP's one is "are you using first person or third person when describing your character and you character's actions ?"

If you are using third person, it's immediately easiest to play anything you want : 
-> with a gleeful laughter, the petite warlock ask the guard "what if I turn you into a fish and let you fry in the desert? Or maybe you have more information to tell us..."
VS 
-> I ask the guard : (changing voice to a ridiculously high pitched one) ""what if I turn you into a fish and let you fry in the desert? Or maybe you have more information to tell us..."

Ok, both maybe somewhat creepy, but in the first case it's an intended effect, while in the other...


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 17, 2010)

I find it there to be a number of gray areas in the whole "are you portraying the opposite gender correctly?" question because of little things like the personality of the woman I married. If I were to portray her personality accurately in a game, some people might think I was doing it wrong: doesn't like kids, doesn't socialize with other women, was really excited for _The Expendables_? She's pretty atypical, but I assure you that she's very realistic. So I'm cool with a little "inaccuracy" as long as it's not clearly a player working through... issues with the other gender. Thankfully, nobody in my group has said issues.

That said, I'm not sure why I haven't played a female character since college. I guess I use up all the concepts for females when I'm running games.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 17, 2010)

Aloïsius said:


> I think another question linked to the OP's one is "are you using first person or third person when describing your character and you character's actions?"




I use first person, and I'll occasionally do an accent or distinctive speech pattern (though this is mostly for NPCs--too hard to maintain over the long haul for a player character), but I don't do falsetto for female characters. I figure, if my fellow gamers can imagine that I'm a dragon or a tiefling or whatever, they can imagine that my voice is a couple octaves higher than it is.


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 17, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> I don't think so.  I've never been in a situation with a man playing a woman where the roleplaying _didn't_ creep me out.
> 
> Given that, why not play your own gender, _even if only_ to avoid the "he -- wait, she -- wait, are you female?" issue?




Could you give us an example of how you feel, with the exceptions of the extremes, what did those characters do, how did they act, that particularly creeped you out?  It couldn't be the rolling the dice, or the character sheet, or maybe their funny hat.

And failing to remember your player's character's gender sounds to me more like an issue of just simply failing to remember.



Umbran said:


> Neither offends me.  However, I'll take a stab at the basic reason some might be offended:  kobolds don't actually exist, and women do.



No, women don't exist.  You perception of how a woman should be exists.  Societal perceptions of how women should be exist.  The females of the species homo-sapien exist.  But "women" as a conglomerative group of people who act in a specific manner, do not.



> The primary differences between humans and kobolds will tend to be simplistic and stereotyped, as even the multi-page document your DM gives you isn't a treatment in real depth on a whole society and culture.  And we take that as okay, as we don't have any real non-human sentients walking around to compare to.  We all know our attempts to do it will be rough, and no real person can take the rendition as mocking or insensitive.



So under your logic, I could play a female elf, dragonborn, or yes, even kobold, because they too do not exist.  A female kobold is no more real than a female elf.  And neither are any more real than your human male sorcerer.



> Over-simplify the subtleties between the male and female points of view, however, and you are apt to cheese someone off, because there are real people involved, and real history in which some folks have gotten and still get the short end of the stick.



The probability that you will piss someone off doing something is downright overwhelming.  You could sit around on your bum all day and THAT would piss someone off.  People's problems in this day and age lie in the fact that everyone is being coddled.  You don't like that I play a woman badly?  Instead of tearing me a new one, help me play a woman better.  If a woman complains and says "men will never understand" then that is simply sexism and I'll happily call them for it.



> Non gaming example:  Nobody cares about the weak portrayal of Wookie culture in Star Wars.  As soon as they present Star Wars races that resemble some real world stereotypes too much, and you get a load of argument.



Not being a huge Star Wars nut I can't really say for sure on that example, but in general I agree.  But that is a failing of the creators, not the viewers.  If you're so tapped-out for material that all you can think of for wookies(or in the cause I champion, dwarves), is just taken from historical stereotypes of humans, then you really need to step back and refresh your mind.


----------



## Subtlepanic (Aug 17, 2010)

Bah, I think the whole "men are from mars, women are from venus" thing is overblown anyway. Men and women are pretty darn similar personality-wise. It's just that most guys seem to think that in order to play women properly, you have to accentuate the small differences that do make us different.

Depends what sort of game you run. In your average kick-down-the-door, my-village-was-raided-by-orcs campaign, playing women shouldn't matter a bit. Avoid playing on the feminine, just like I'm sure you avoid overplaying the masculine.

If you're playing campaigns that feature stronger storytelling, you run the risk of romance cropping up, as it often does in good stories. Then, between guy DM and guy Player, you can have some uncomfortable moments. Best to handwave it away. Of course, romance in general in RPGs is kind of weird however you swing it. As a guy DMing for a bunch of girls, it's almost weirder...  

Anyway, as an adult I've played with a load of girls who've played guys, and a  quite a few guys who've played girls, and nobody's ever really batted an eyelid. Maybe I've just been blessed with good players.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 17, 2010)

It doesn't bother me.  That being said there are plenty of gamers that do end up being creepy when they play a different gender.  But those gamers tend to just be creepy no matter what they play so instead of not allowing cross gender characters I find it easiest to just not play with creepy gamers.  Or let them DM (Hi Ironwolf!)


----------



## Mikaze (Aug 17, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> I use first person, and I'll occasionally do an accent or distinctive speech pattern (though this is mostly for NPCs--too hard to maintain over the long haul for a player character), but I don't do falsetto for female characters. I figure, if my fellow gamers can imagine that I'm a dragon or a tiefling or whatever, they can imagine that my voice is a couple octaves higher than it is.




This has been my approach for GMing female NPCs too. I just use my range of male voices, soft or rough, and change inflections whenever needed. 

No one at the table could take a Douglas Douglasson-style "female" voice seriously at all.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Aug 17, 2010)

I guess its time for me to trot out my "Why I started playing female characters" story again. Our group was sitting around the gaming table a week after finishing up one campaign, and had just decided what to play next. (I don't even remember what, probably D&D.) That's whe our only female player said that she was strarting to feel pretty funny having the only female character in the party, and would someone else please play another female, or maybe she ought to play a male character? 

Now, this particular female player was: a). A really nice person. b). A real hottie. and c). One of the best roleplayers any of us have ever played with. Therefore the only question(s) was/were, who would play the other female character, and/or how many? (For a moment there it looked like we might end up with an all female party.) 

As you've no doubt guessed by now, I ended up playing the other female. Not being sure how to play one 'correctly', I just played her the way I play any other character. She seemed to think I did an ok job, so I became the 'designated other female' of the group. Since that time I've played about 75% female characters (which probably puts the total around 50%), many simply out of habit even when playing with different groups. 

Have there ever been times where things have gone differently because I was playing a female character? Yeah, but its been really rare, and usually ended up with everyone having a good time of it. ((Ok, I'll relate the one that I actually remember. We were around 5thish level at a dwarven party outdoors [weird enough already] when a group of werewolves attacked. My female half-elf spellcaster was soon out of spells and got bitten. Not wanting to risk changing in the middle of battle and attacking anyone else I had her run back to a group of dwarves who were guarding the birthday cake [or somesuch] and yelled: "Tie me up!" Looking around the table at the shocked expressions on everyone else's faces, and hearing the evil snicker coming from the GM, I realized that I'd just put my foot in it up to the hip. Much hilarity ensued! Fortunately we were/are all friends, so nothing too terribly bad happened.))


----------



## Psion (Aug 17, 2010)

When approaching the topic of making characters, I don't draw much distinction between making one to play than I would identifying a character that interests me in fiction. Is it okay for me to like Sydney Bristow or Jean Grey as TV or comic characters, for example?

That being the case, I wouldn't impose a restriction on a player to the contrary.

That being said, I'd prefer if there be a way the players can actually tell your character is a female (if male) or vice-versa. Having a mini, an illo, or a convincing portrayal all would help.

Now playing a Kender is something I don't allow.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 17, 2010)

A female player once criticised me for my portrayal of a female character. My PC was a viking-type 3e barbarian, like Fafhrd, only female, with something like an 18 strength. The other player said she was a 'man in drag'.

It's a fair point, the character was very masculine, but I think she was wrong to expect all female PCs to be feminine, particularly adventurer types.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Aug 17, 2010)

I don't have a problem with it. As long as the player doesn't play out some twisted sexual fantasy or worse. Make a character simply to make fun of the other gender.

I have seen people play other genders. Some do it great where if you closed your eyes you could imagine them really being that gender. Some do it good where you could believe it. Most do it ok, same as how most play any character with a lot of difference from them. Then some do it poorly but they are trying to do it well. Then there is some that just suck at it. 

Finally we get to that small group that is horrible and they tend to stick in our minds. The ones that cause horror stories and get it banned from tables. Which i find personally odd. I personally allow it when I GM, but if you do play a horrible other gender. Then I will warn you and if it keeps up. Yank the character and ban that player from playing it. Just like i would do if someone played a elf in a stupid way and refused change. As in one that talked like a Valley Girl, contently hugged tree's and played up all the worse stereo types of elves that have built up over the years.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 17, 2010)

Ed_Laprade said:


> That's whe our only female player said that she was strarting to feel pretty funny having the only female character in the party, and would someone else please play another female, or maybe she ought to play a male character?
> 
> Now, this particular female player was: a). A really nice person. b). A real hottie. and c). One of the best roleplayers any of us have ever played with. Therefore the only question(s) was/were, who would play the other female character, and/or how many? (For a moment there it looked like we might end up with an all female party.)
> 
> As you've no doubt guessed by now, I ended up playing the other female. Not being sure how to play one 'correctly', I just played her the way I play any other character. She seemed to think I did an ok job, so I became the 'designated other female' of the group.



You were like her gay best friend.


----------



## sev (Aug 17, 2010)

Historically I've played cross-gender more often than I've played my own gender.  I've been on a streak of playing my own gender lately, and I haven't figured out yet whether that's significant in any way.

I do know that roleplaying is a significant source of insight for me into my own head, even when I'm not seeking that insight.  It's just that whatever is happening in my subconscious gets lit up with a really bright light when it shows up in my characters.  My favorite throw-caution-to-the-winds character who leaped into the unknown with a cheer showed up when I was starting to get impatient with the caution in my own life and really did need to learn how to step into the unknown.  I wasn't at all aware of it at the time, but even very shortly after it was clear that I was practicing something I needed in my life. 

One way this manifests regarding the gender of my characters is that oftentimes I'm playing with traits that I avoid because I've been socialized to think that "girls don't do that."  In some cases if I was a boy I'd probably have been taught that "boys don't do that," too -- but since I *am* female, I can get around the gendered messages I might have absorbed by playing a male character. 

Regarding other people playing cross-gender, I've seen the creepy factor crop up too, though not with my current gaming group.  A person's disdain for women that might so minor as to be normally invisible can get magnified when that person plays a caricature. 

Caricature in and of itself isn't an awful thing -- without it, we couldn't roleplay.  I am not a super-strong and sturdy axe-wielding dwarf, and I have to rely on some shorthand to roleplay that character.  From some people, in some roles, that shorthand can be horrifically creepy or offensive.  I'd be interested to know how people point that sort of thing out to someone who's doing it, if any of you have actually tried.


----------



## Mikaze (Aug 17, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> A female player once criticised me for my portrayal of a female character. My PC was a viking-type 3e barbarian, like Fafhrd, only female, with something like an 18 strength. The other player said she was a 'man in drag'.
> 
> It's a fair point, the character was very masculine, but I think she was wrong to expect all female PCs to be feminine, particularly adventurer types.





Some women can be sexist towards their own gender as well, just like some guys doing the same to male characters that aren't "masculine enough".

Cripes, I remember this one lady that was absolutely hung up on the notion of female characters having "non-feminine" haircuts making them less of a woman.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 17, 2010)

Dark Mistress said:


> Just like i would do if someone played a elf in a stupid way and refused change. As in one that talked like a Valley Girl, contently hugged tree's and played up all the worse stereo types of elves that have built up over the years.



I really like that character!

I think some stereotypes are fine and some aren't. Stereotypes based on race, gender or sexual orientation are in poor taste and feel very outdated, at best, offensive, at worst. But I'm down with hippy elves, fireball-happy wizards, light-fingered thieves, grumpy dwarves, plucky kids, absent-minded professors, and all the rest. Partly it's, as Umbran says, that fantasy races aren't real so no one minds.


----------



## malcolypse (Aug 17, 2010)

I've played several female characters over the years, and it's always been fun, so I never have a problem letting a player do it in a game I'm running.

For anyone out there who just can't understand why someone would want to play a member of the opposite gender I offer up this, my greatest insight into woman-kind: They're just as interesting as males.

In my experience, if a male gamer is portraying a female character in an irresponsibly offensive manner, I only have to insist that they speak in a Monty Python pepperpot voice "for me, so I can remember that you're a female," and they generally want to play a new character the next session.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 17, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> The good thing about "infinite" is that when you subtract 1 ... you still have "infinite."




Yes, but it is still smaller- thus,IMHO, poorer-  than the greater infinity that includes more.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 17, 2010)

One thing I find amusing is when a dude plays as a lady but is then either 1) homosexual, or 2) completely asexual.

That actually would make a vaguely interesting poll, to see who's played a character with a different _sexuality_ then their own.


----------



## radmod (Aug 17, 2010)

I fall into the sexist category. 
I don't like guys playing girls because they generally suck at it. But I don't bat an eye at a girl playing a guy.

BTW, in 2e, the group was making rude jokes about a female player's cycle (she was eating it up) and said female characters should get extra damage for three days every 27/28 days. She loved the joke, and it became a house rule.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 17, 2010)

Mikaze said:


> Some women can be sexist towards their own gender as well, just like some guys doing the same to male characters that aren't "masculine enough".




Well, let's be clear about our terminology.

"Sexism" is the belief that one of the sexes is superior.

This is not the same as "stereotyping" - which is where you say members of a particular gender have particular traits.  Sexism often works with stereotypes, but working with stereotypes is not inherently sexist - you can feel the sexes have specific traits, but feel they are equal.

"Not masculine enough" is a stereotyping thing.  The belief that masculinity is of higher value than femininity is sexism.  A person can be sexist, feeling the females are superior, and still complain that your male character was "not masculine enough", failing to match the stereotype.


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 18, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Well, let's be clear about our terminology.
> 
> "Sexism" is the belief that one of the sexes is superior.
> 
> ...




And stereotypes form from the belief that one thing is not as good as the other, that a man with less muscle is therefore more feminine and therefore less valuable as a person.  It's STILL sexism.


----------



## sev (Aug 18, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> One thing I find amusing is when a dude plays as a lady but is then either 1) homosexual, or 2) completely asexual.
> 
> That actually would make a vaguely interesting poll, to see who's played a character with a different _sexuality_ then their own.



My characters are mostly-asexual, regardless of gender.  My character who flirted shamelessly with everyone would have been *horrified* at the idea of actually following through on anything with anyone; if there'd been any romance in that campaign, he would have had an endless courtship that was never consummated.   Several of my other characters of note from the last decade have been ascetic religious types.

Sexuality in a roleplaying game can be a land-mine for female gamers.  I have had too many icky experiences with guys having their characters hit on mine and then failing to remember where the boundaries are between the players and their characters (which likely contributed to my habit of playing male and/or asexual characters).


----------



## Alan Shutko (Aug 18, 2010)

Trevalon Moonleirion said:


> Doesn't bother me a bit.  I play women all the time behind the DM screen, don't see why I'd need to stop on the other side.
> 
> For me, the decision on what gender my character is largely depends on what I find in the way of inspiration for the character, be it a name that really grabs me, or a picture that I like a lot, or a miniature, if I decide to buy one.



This makes me think that it would be really fun to DM a game where there just are no women NPCs.  They just don't exist.  The characters are whatever gender the players are.  I have both men and women in the group, and they usually play their own gender.  So I wonder how long it would take for them to notice something is wrong....


"I call out for the barmaid and ask her for a drink!"

"Well, there are no barmaids, but there are men carting around drinks."

This could be the basis of some epic mystery... where are all the women?  Why don't the populace seem to notice that there aren't any?


----------



## Diamond Cross (Aug 18, 2010)

My girlfriend and I once played gay Dwarves. We were both male characters. The reasoning behind this was because the ratio of male Dwarves to female Dwarves was eight to one, so she reasoned that because of such a ratio there would be a much higher number of homosexual Dwarves. Which at the time made sense.

But I stopped when the real gay guy in the group made up a Dwarf to fight my girlfriend for my attentions. That was one of the creepiest experiences of my life.


----------



## rgard (Aug 18, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> Personally, I find it to be pointless and...creepy.
> 
> Frankly, if one want to explore being a different gender, I'd prefer they not do it in my game.  Instead, I think they should just take a trip to Thailand...




I'm not reading all 7 pages of this, but in case it hasn't been mentioned:

'Creepy', as in the 'creepy guy who always plays a hot elf chick'.  That's an RPG archetype.

As for Thailand...nevermind.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Aug 18, 2010)

Yeah, I think playing any sexuality in D&D is creepy.

I've only once thought it wasn't, while running a solo game for my wife.  But a DM RPing a character's sexual partner?  or two player's (involved or not) rping a sexual relationship to anuy great detail?  Creepy.

Off screen is fine, but even one flirtatcious line creeps me out.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 18, 2010)

Alan Shutko said:


> This makes me think that it would be really fun to DM a game where there just are no women NPCs.  They just don't exist.  The characters are whatever gender the players are.  I have both men and women in the group, and they usually play their own gender.  So I wonder how long it would take for them to notice something is wrong....
> 
> 
> "I call out for the barmaid and ask her for a drink!"
> ...




But isn't this exactly what happens?  In many games, NPCs are "male until shown otherwise," and the vast majority of the time, female NPCs only crop up when someone actively _female_ is needed.


Also, for the record, I didn't mean people should out and openly roleplay their sexuality.  Just, you know, we all know about the barbarian warrior who wenches or the slick bard who picks up all the bar maids and so on and so forth.  It'd be interesting to see how many people play against that.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 18, 2010)

Alan Shutko said:


> This could be the basis of some epic mystery... where are all the women? Why don't the populace seem to notice that there aren't any?





THE WOMEN!!!!


----------



## TarionzCousin (Aug 18, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> It's fine so long as males playing females don't make them all slutty.



Slutty, no. Flirting with the homophobes, yes--especially if it's "flirtatcious."


----------



## Khazan (Aug 18, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> I used to be heavily into MUDding............ >snip<
> 
> .........I was playing a female character.  (I'd been given a higher-level female character and found that chicks got in-game help from guys.  So I creepily and offensively pretended to be a chick.




I was just curious if this might be some of the reason why you don't like when guys play female characters.... a negative association from your MUDding days, finding that some guys only played female characters because they knew they could get lots of help from other players (mainly guys).

Getting loads of phat loots from guys because your character is female  - - which of course means the guys are either _assuming_ you're a girl IRL, or you _actively portray _yourself as a girl IRL - - would certainly sour you on the practice of guys playing female characters I suppose (i saw that in WOW a lot, that's for sure).  

Maybe that has carried over to tabletop gaming, where you are wary of guy players roleplaying their characters helping out a female character _in extremis_, regardless of who is in the driver's seat.

Just a thought.  Good thread and good discussion all around btw.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Aug 18, 2010)

On computer games I've played female avatars, but that was just for the eye candy. I like seeing attractive girls kick butt.


----------



## Khazan (Aug 18, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> On computer games I've played female avatars, but that was just for the eye candy. I like seeing attractive girls kick butt.





LOL

 Yes, I seem to remember someone once saying, about a single-player PC game, "If I'm going to spend 6 hours playing this game, I sure as heck don't want to be staring at some guy's backside the whole time....that's why i made a female elf sorceress."


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Aug 18, 2010)

Khazan said:


> I was just curious if this might be some of the reason why you don't like when guys play female characters.... a negative association from your MUDding days, finding that some guys only played female characters because they knew they could get lots of help from other players (mainly guys).



Negative?  Not at all.  I loved my MUDding days.  (It might be accurate to speculate that MUDs are why I'm anti-MMORPG, though.)



> Getting loads of phat loots from guys because your character is female  - - which of course means the guys are either _assuming_ you're a girl IRL, or you _actively portray _yourself as a girl IRL - - would certainly sour you on the practice of guys playing female characters I suppose (i saw that in WOW a lot, that's for sure).



No, there's really no association, and I believe I'm being objective.

(It was both, BTW ... at first they assumed, and then when they asked I lied, and by the time I figured out that lying was a douche move (I was young), I wasn't entirely sure how to extricate myself from the situation without losing my status and the gaming I loved.  Eventually, though, I was outed, remained friends with my, uh, court of admirers, and continued as a wiz/admin for quite a while.)

It's really very simple: I am creeped out (and/or offended) by men playing women PCs in RPGs.  I'm a super-liberal guy in the Bay Area, and the list of things that creep me out or offend me is surprisingly short (at least when it comes to gender or sexuality) ... but that's one of them.


----------



## Khazan (Aug 18, 2010)

I see... thanks for the explanation and your honesty!


----------



## Umbran (Aug 18, 2010)

shidaku said:


> And stereotypes form from the belief that one thing is not as good as the other




Yes and no.  Stereotypes come from us having to classify things in order to wrap our brains around them.  And it isn't like sometimes one thing is actually better than another.  As a benign example, for most intents and purposes, "refrigerators" really are better than "iceboxes".  

It just gets ugly when we do it to people for the wrong reasons, with false generalizations.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yes, but it is still smaller- thus,IMHO, poorer-  than the greater infinity that includes more.




In a mathematical sense, I don't think it is smaller.


----------



## nai_cha (Aug 18, 2010)

Khazan said:


> LOL
> 
> Yes, I seem to remember someone once saying, about a single-player PC game, "If I'm going to spend 6 hours playing this game, I sure as heck don't want to be staring at some guy's backside the whole time....that's why i made a female elf sorceress."




Works the other way around, too.

Sure, it's great to see strong female characters kicking butt and taking names, but sometimes I just want to enjoy hot dudes running around being BAMFs.

That's not why I play male characters in tabletop RPGs, though.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 18, 2010)

Charwoman Gene said:


> Yeah, I think playing any sexuality in D&D is creepy.




That's an absolute I just couldn't get behind. Example: One of my players is gay, and plays a heterosexual peasant hero-type. He has a wife. If the player says "Opilio goes home to put his kid to bed early and 'celebrate' with his wife," I'm pretty sure there's no titillation going on there for him — his character does that because that's what the character would do. Sexuality is used as a humanizing touch. It's like a character having a favorite drink or a pet turn of phrase.

I dunno, I guess to me sexuality is classified alongside violence. A flirtatious line is no creepier to me than a bloodthirsty threat. Hell, depending on the threat, I might find that a _lot_ creepier than a player trying to get into a fictional barmaid's bodice. Sometimes these guys, they have vivid imaginations.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 18, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> That's an absolute I just couldn't get behind. Example: One of my players is gay, and plays a heterosexual peasant hero-type. He has a wife. If the player says "Opilio goes home to put his kid to bed early and 'celebrate' with his wife," I'm pretty sure there's no titillation going on there for him — his character does that because that's what the character would do. Sexuality is used as a humanizing touch. It's like a character having a favorite drink or a pet turn of phrase.
> 
> I dunno, I guess to me sexuality is classified alongside violence. A flirtatious line is no creepier to me than a bloodthirsty threat. Hell, depending on the threat, I might find that a _lot_ creepier than a player trying to get into a fictional barmaid's bodice. Sometimes these guys, they have vivid imaginations.




To me it's a question of how detailed we get. I mean, macking on barmaids is a time-honored pastime in D&D, but I don't want to hear the play-by-play, you know?

I'm okay with some flirtation as long as everyone at the table handles it in a mature way (some gamers give off a seriously creepy vibe when _anything_ sexual comes up, at which point I want to shut off the whole topic ASAP). But when the characters enter the bedroom, I'm gonna fade to black unless there's an assassin waiting in there or something.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 18, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> I really like that character!
> 
> I think some stereotypes are fine and some aren't. Stereotypes based on race, gender or sexual orientation are in poor taste and feel very outdated, at best, offensive, at worst. But I'm down with hippy elves, fireball-happy wizards, light-fingered thieves, grumpy dwarves, plucky kids, absent-minded professors, and all the rest. Partly it's, as Umbran says, that fantasy races aren't real so no one minds.



Absolutely!  And sorry, Doug, but I'm told I must spread more XP around before I can give you any more...

As for the rest of this: for me and my crew, playing another gender is no problem at all.  I'm more creeped out, in fact, by those who find it *is* a problem.

I'm male, yet some of my best characters have been female in part because sometimes a character concept works quite differently depending on what gender is used.  A good example of this is a character I've been playing for a while in our Saturday game.   She's the cultural equivalent of a Roman Legionary commander in background and personality, a half-decent wizard by class, and LN to the core in alignment.  If I played a guy using that concept and with that personality he'd almost certainly come off as a complete overbearing military-ramrod asshat; but because she's a woman she for a long time just came across as assertive and able to take care of herself, if somewhat bossy. (after two years they're only just now slowly beginning to realize she really *is* something of an asshat, and I suspect she's not much longer for that party; but that's another story)

In one recent party I was running self-named the Gamma Girls, a player-enacted and player-enforced house rule was that every PC had to be female; this came about after a deadly combat that (by sheer coincidence) only the female PCs survived.

Every player was male.

There was one lesbian romance within that party, which played out just like any other romance right down to the dramatics.

The concept fell apart after a couple of adventures, mostly because they got clobbered and lost a bunch of characters and decided to abandon the all-girl idea...ironically enough, by this point there was a female player.  But the party is still going.

The one key to help others to remember a PCs gender is to give it a name that obviously goes with the gender; an obviously-gendered mini helps too.  The ones I always mix up are the ones with androgynous-sounding names and minis that are all cloak.

As for sexuality in the game: bring it on. 

Lan-"and valley-girl Elves rock, too!"-efan


----------



## Stormonu (Aug 18, 2010)

WHW4 said:


> I don't like to RP female characters as a PC myself simply because as a male I don't feel like I have enough of a grasp on the female mentality to accurately RP one, so I just leave it. I got no problem with others who do it as long as things stay PG-13 territory.




Not to pick on any one particular, but really, how many of us are portraying elves or dwarves "accurately"?  I don't think playing the opposite gender is a matter of doing it right or wrong - after all, the game is heavily based on stereotypes in of itself - so long as everyone's having fun.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 18, 2010)

Umbran said:


> In a mathematical sense, I don't think it is smaller.




*puts on childhood math geek hat*

An infinite set with one element removed is the same size as the set including that element. You can't do arithmetic on infinity; what you have to do is set up a function that maps every element in set A to exactly one element in set B and vice versa. If such a function exists, the sets are the same "size" (or the same cardinality, to use the technical term).

However, the answer to "infinity minus one" isn't "infinity"--it's "undefined." Like I said, you can't do arithmetic on infinity.


----------



## CrimsonReaver (Aug 18, 2010)

Yeah...I'm not a fan.  At best, it tends to be silly, distracting, and/or eye-rollingly bad.  At worst, it's offensive, creepy, and/or downright disgusting.  I'd rather players just didn't do it.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 18, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> To me it's a question of how detailed we get. I mean, macking on barmaids is a time-honored pastime in D&D, but I don't want to hear the play-by-play, you know?
> 
> I'm okay with some flirtation as long as everyone at the table handles it in a mature way (some gamers give off a seriously creepy vibe when _anything_ sexual comes up, at which point I want to shut off the whole topic ASAP). But when the characters enter the bedroom, I'm gonna fade to black unless there's an assassin waiting in there or something.




That's pretty much where I sit, with the additional caveat that I really just try to avoid playing with gamers who do give off any creepy vibe when sexual things come up. There's no reason to fill in the graphic blanks, particularly at the table. I think sexuality is a powerful issue that frequently governs a character's ambitions — are they looking to marry well? for love? not at all? Each answer spins off potential subplots. But sexuality and detailed sexual content are completely different beasts.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Aug 18, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> You were like her gay best friend.



LOL, I wish! (Um, wait...) I think she started dating the GM around that time. They made a wicked team when playing together, but he didn't cut her any slack when behind the screen. Not that he needed to!


----------



## Hussar (Aug 18, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> For those who don't think male players do a good job accurately portraying female characters: How, specifically, do you distinguish a well-portrayed female character from a poorly-portrayed one?
> 
> I mean, I think we can agree that the lesbian stripper ninja is probably not a well-portrayed female character. But I get the sense that's not what you folks are talking about.




Swimming back upthread a ways to take a kick at this cat.

My bar for "good" vs "bad" on any role playing based on being something you are not (whether that be gender, species, race (in the real world sense), background) is whether or not anyone at the table ever turns to that player and says, "You're a _____?  Really?  Since when?"

Replace the blank with "woman", "elf" or "South African Physicist" and it's all the same to me.  If you're going to play a character with defining characteristics, it's entirely up to the player to make absolutely sure that those characteristics are visible and known at the table.

Which means, if you're playing an emancipated slave in a Wild West setting, you better bring up the fact that, A.  You are a former slave,  B.  You are now free, and C.  You are not white. 

Otherwise, why is it on your character sheet?


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Aug 18, 2010)

Woo. Just read all 8 pages. Slow day at work.

I play 90% of my characters as male. My female characters are not all that different from the male ones truth be told. 

My current DnD character is female. She's party leader by dint of me (not the PC, the player) being a bit of a pushy loud mouthed SOB. I play her as tough, decisive and (in combat) no nonsense. Outside of combat she's pretty laid back. She's the only character to have had a sexual encounter (well, 3 sexual encounters) in the campaign. All such encounters were with males, happened after a fade to black and were level appropriate. She also does the cooking. 

So I'm crossing a couple of lines here: the cross-gender character and in-game sex. And neither of these things bothers any of the other players (3 guys, 2 girls.) But then I don't play up stereotypes or indulge in weird fantasies at the gaming table.

A game which I run had 2 of the (male) players discover their (male) Dwarves were in fact having a homosexual relationship. I say discover because neither player thought of it at character creation, it just came up in play. _bad-dum-tsh_ And everyone (3 other males, 1 female) thought it was awesome.

The real issue is not the character but the player. Some players play offensive chracters because they are offensive people.

cheers.


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 18, 2010)

I find it strange that this is even a question. Who cares what I play? RAWR, I'M A MONSTER!!!!

We are all just making this stuff up.


----------



## Clarabell (Aug 18, 2010)

There was one point where a new player in our group said it was really weird that another person, a guy, was playing a girl. I pointed out, "Your playing a giant cow that stands up right." (minotaur).

And while it doesn't apply to D&D, in video games, he usually plays females as well because "If I'm going to be sitting here staring at a screen for hours, I want to look at something pretty."

But yeah, gender doesn't mean much really. If your out there throwing balls of fire, summoning demons of the abyss, fighting darkmantles, walking corpses, and dragons, why are you concerned if someone is playing a gender that isn't their own? Its all pretend ^^


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Aug 18, 2010)

I have no problem with guys playing girls or girls playing guys, with the standard caveat.

The last female I played was a Starlock who I modeled after one of the characters from the Harry Potter movies.  I never read the books, but my wife absolutely loved them so I go see them just like she suffers through Star Wars for me.  

Anyways, I saw the blonde wizardess (sorry, I don't remember the character's name) who saved HP's life on the train in the last movie and instantly thought, "What an amazing Malkavian."  My wife looked at me funny, but I knew I wanted to play a riff on that character the next chance I got, which just happened to be the Starlock.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 18, 2010)

I find people who object to it (cross-gender roleplaying) somewhat freaky/disturbing, but I try to tolerate them.  I have a player in an online game who objects to it, and his views do bug me, but generally I can ignore it.

I haven't encountered a player in a tabletop game who seriously objected to it, but I remember one male player who kept calling my female PC 'he'.  I've never seen a female player or GM who objected to it.

Which isn't to say it can't be done badly, but I've seen it done badly precisely once, 23 years ago. I, and the player, were 14 years old.


----------



## JustKim (Aug 18, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> But when the characters enter the bedroom, I'm gonna fade to black unless there's an assassin waiting in there or something.



I agree, a threesome with an assassin is worth detailing.

I don't really play male characters unless I need to as the DM. There are all kinds of reasons why. Most of the women I've played with create male characters at least once, and often for their first character. I have no problem with folks playing a different gender, except that it makes it more difficult to weave in a romantic subplot.

Someone said before that a better question is whether people often play against sexual preference. I think that's a completely different question, and the answer for me is yes, about half the time. I think this unusually high percentage is because playing against preference means playing a more socially normal character.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 18, 2010)

Alan Shutko said:


> This makes me think that it would be really fun to DM a game where there just are no women NPCs.  They just don't exist.  The characters are whatever gender the players are.  I have both men and women in the group, and they usually play their own gender.  So I wonder how long it would take for them to notice something is wrong....
> 
> 
> "I call out for the barmaid and ask her for a drink!"
> ...




It would be like one of those Star Trek: TNG episodes, where they purposefully annoy you by not explaining anything right before they go to the first commercial.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 18, 2010)

JustKim said:


> I have no problem with folks playing a different gender, except that it makes it more difficult to weave in a romantic subplot.




Why's that?


----------



## JustKim (Aug 18, 2010)

S'mon said:


> Why's that?



Oh, it's more to do with characterization than comfort levels. It's just more difficult to create an NPC who, for instance, appeals to the character as a woman without putting off the player as a man. It's more difficult with male players, for me at least. I'm curious if the opposite is true for male DMs, but darned if I knew where to find them.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 18, 2010)

I don't think most people who are objecting to cross-gender playing understand gender as well as they might think.

I have been accused of playing a female character, badly. However, at the time, I was actually playing a foppish male character. That my flamboyant presentation could even be mistaken for the intention to portray a standard issue female character is a point of pride for myself (that I was able to convey enough there, there) and also a reason to laugh at people who think they know what they are seeing in gender situations when context is removed.

I used to MUD. I played a couple of female characters. I had no interest in flirting for gold or getting special attention, nor in "cybering," and in fact found OOC attention pretty annoying if it didn't result in XP. Nonetheless, chivalry was foisted upon me. Further, the flirtation was relentless, and at one point, I ended up in a long conversation over the course of two days, and remained cagey about my RL gender because I didn't want to be seen as a creepo. The result? Listening to mild heartache and serious self-pity when I was finally cornered into spilling the beans by my persistent paramour. 

In my first Werewolf game, I played a female cheerleader, none too bright. While it would be easy to slip into stereotypes there, I thought it was really interesting to juxtapose a conventional, not very insightful character with the strange and surreal circumstances. Further, I played her as a very earnest, decent person. The other players remembered her for her obstinency, for her participation in a fiasco that nearly got her killed, and for her perhaps overly optimistic attempts to rescue lost cubs from the Black Spiral Dancers. They don't necessarily remember her much as to my credibility as a female.

I just wrapped up my level 1 to 20 3.5/Pathfinder game. One of the crowning moments of glory was the death of the hag, Higarla. My players _hated_ her and constantly alternated between schemes to get her killed and figuring out a way to obtain her knowledge and aid. She did a seductive routine against a PC disguised as a milkmaid. I won't deny for a second I enjoyed playing her, that I took some vicarious pleasure in tormenting the PCs with her triple-crossing and her perverse affection for those she would lead onto a path that meant danger as well as possible glory... But for my players' part, the way they responded to her as a character, she might as well have been a different person. They all but danced on her grave.


----------



## evileeyore (Aug 18, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> I must be just as *insane*, because just as I don't assume that people who want to play an Evil character are "massive creephats," or that people who want to play an adult dragon character are "massive creephats," I don't assume that people who want to play a cross-gender PC are "massive creephats."




Sure.


But anyone playing the opposite sex just so they can get extra goodies?  That's a creeptard right there.


----------



## JustKim (Aug 18, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I used to MUD. I played a couple of female characters. I had no interest in flirting for gold or getting special attention, nor in "cybering," and in fact found OOC attention pretty annoying if it didn't result in XP. Nonetheless, chivalry was foisted upon me. Further, the flirtation was relentless, and at one point, I ended up in a long conversation over the course of two days, and remained cagey about my RL gender because I didn't want to be seen as a creepo. The result? Listening to mild heartache and serious self-pity when I was finally cornered into spilling the beans by my persistent paramour.



I know the kind of behavior you describe is responsible for a lot of women playing male characters. It's not so much that we're curious, we just don't want to have to beat off paramours with a stick. Or have to think about where your mind goes when we mention beating off paramours with a stick.

When I played MMOs, I found that I could play female characters perfectly comfortably because people would assume I was male. So thank you, 14 year old boys playing female characters, for that.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Aug 18, 2010)

I'm fine with it. It's been my experience that people play their PC's gender about as well as they play their race.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 18, 2010)

JustKim said:


> Oh, it's more to do with characterization than comfort levels. It's just more difficult to create an NPC who, for instance, appeals to the character as a woman without putting off the player as a man. It's more difficult with male players, for me at least. I'm curious if the opposite is true for male DMs, but darned if I knew where to find them.




I think it depends a bit on the level of player-PC identification - I generally play PCs who, while they contain aspects of my personality, are very much 'not me', whether they're axe-wielding male barbarians* or dedicated female military officers.

That said, I don't have much experience as a player of playing a romance with a female PC.  I remember one time playing 'Midnight' with a female GM my very reserved female Ironborn Fighter PC Zana Than clumsily tried to court a young man she took a fancy to, giving him a gift of jewelry, but the GM didn't pick up on it - I think Zana was *too* reserved! 

The majority of my experience of romance subplots has been GMing female NPCs with male PCs played by male players, or in a few cases male NPCs with female players of female PCs.  All have been heterosexual, I've never seen this "Male Player of Lesbian Stripper Ninja PC" thing, and I don't think I've ever seen or GM'd a Lesbian Stripper Ninja NPC either! 


*Although as I'm an Ulsterman, some of my southern-English fellow gamers do seem to find me a little barbaric.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 18, 2010)

JustKim said:


> Oh, it's more to do with characterization than comfort levels. It's just more difficult to create an NPC who, for instance, appeals to the character as a woman without putting off the player as a man. It's more difficult with male players, for me at least. I'm curious if the opposite is true for male DMs, but darned if I knew where to find them.




Lemme think - for a straight male player of a female PC, with a female GM and male NPC romantic interest... I'm thinking one trick might be for the male NPC to be a "man's man", someone the male player will identify with.  Think Clint Eastwood or Charlton Heston, craggy square-jawed types.  Avoid the kind of Johnny Depp/Orlando Bloom type male leads who mostly appeal to women, or the Romance Novel male who is strong-but-sexy and goes all squishy for the female protagonist.

That said, in the Midnight game the NPC my female PC was romantically interested in was a brave young squire of similar age to herself, and when I GM'd for female players in a Conan game they rapidly acquired downy-cheeked youths to swoon at the feet of their young female barbarian PCs, so that might be a possibility too.  Also depends on how much of the romance is played out and how much is just abstracted.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 18, 2010)

I gotta admit that romance is one area in my games that things have never really happened.  I've honestly rarely even made much of an attempt at it (beyond the typical hur hur gurls sort of thing).  The last longish campaign I ran, I straight up asked the players if this was something they would be comfortable with and most of them pretty much said no, they were not interested in romance in their D&D game.  Phew, dodged that bullet.

The one time romance did come up in a game, I was very uncomfortable actually.  One of the other players was playing the love interest of my character, chasing him around rather strongly.  I played along at first, but, felt more and more uncomfortable as time went on.  

Totally a failing on my part.  The other player really did a great job.

Now, I tend to simply leave that end of things off the table.  Just not something I fell really comfortable dealing with at the table.


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 18, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Yeah, this. I mean, as long as you're playing in a setting where the genders are treated equally, which covers the majority of fantasy settings,




But not a single modern day, or historical one.



> there's little point, since no character concept requires a particular sex.




I played a Priestess of Idun in an 2nd Ed campaign, there are no Priest of Idun. But that's not the point, there is no character concept that requires your character to be rude, or tall, or an only child, or black, or whatever, but they are still part of your character concept even if they have no in game statistics or effect other than through roleplaying.


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 18, 2010)

JustKim said:


> Oh, it's more to do with characterization than comfort levels. It's just more difficult to create an NPC who, for instance, appeals to the character as a woman without putting off the player as a man. It's more difficult with male players, for me at least. I'm curious if the opposite is true for male DMs, but darned if I knew where to find them.




I find that the problem with NPCs is simply that they try too hard.  Men are either charactichures(sp) of real men, or they're obsessively one thing.   If they like fighting then the LOVE fighting, if they like food then they're fat and the OBSESSED with food.  And so on.  Or worse, they're men who approach romance like women, with subtle clues, dropping hints, and so on.  In short, simply due to time constraints, male NPCs(IME) have generally been about as 2-dimensional as you can get.

Not to mention that even though the PC is a woman, the player is still a man, and men and women have distinctly different ways of picking up that someone is trying to romance them.  Their brain simply isn't trained to receive information in the same way.


As a man, I can honestly say that as much as I like the shapes the female body provides, any other man can be funny, romantic, love food, enjoy heavy metal, and therefore, make me somewhat attracted to them.  But I don't think most DMs, even the good ones, are going to invest that much time in it.

Not to mention, all relationships are willingly entered into(unless there's money!) which is why player-NPC romances are generally bad ideas.  Either a lot of good work goes to waste when they're spurned, or it just gets weird essentially romancing the DM.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 18, 2010)

shidaku said:


> Not to mention, all relationships are willingly entered into(unless there's money!) which is why player-NPC romances are generally bad ideas.  Either a lot of good work goes to waste when they're spurned, or it just gets weird essentially romancing the DM.




I can't help but think "essentially romancing the DM" is entirely a construction in some players' heads. It's never really come across to me; in my groups it's explicitly "my character is romancing this other character," even if some of the lines are delivered in-character. I'm curious if it goes side-by-side with an adversarial relation with the DM: as in, when you try to kill some orcs, are you trying to "defeat the DM"? When you try to get treasure, are you trying to "steal from the DM"? When you threaten an NPC in first-person voice, is it attempting to intimidate the DM into letting you succeed? I know there are groups out there that function like that, and I'm kind of curious if this is an overall rule or if romance & violence are held to different standards of icky & creepy.


----------



## Bullgrit (Aug 18, 2010)

This concept that cross-gender role playing (in a game) is weird . . . makes no sense to me what-so-ever. I mean, contraversial? *blank stare*

As a white, male, human Player in various RPGs (not as a DM/GM), I've played many characters outside my own race, gender, and species:

Elf
Dwarf
Gnome
Wookie
Female
Vampire
Wight
Romani
Asian
Asgardian
Robot

Of all those not-me characters, the _female_ choice is the one that raises more eyebrows?

Bullgrit


----------



## Bullgrit (Aug 18, 2010)

As a DM, I've seen lots of cross-gender role playing. The only time it was ever an "issue" of any kind was when the female player playing a male character sort of "role played" urinating.

The character was tired of the in-game negotiations with an NPC, and so as sort of show of frustration, he left the group to go releive himself. The resulting brief and off-hand description (by the female player) cracked up every guy at the table.

Bullgrit


----------



## EvilQAGuy (Aug 18, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> Elf
> Dwarf
> Gnome
> Wookie
> ...




TWMAGCC (That Would Make A Good Character Concept): a vampiric female robot made in Japan that's programmed to think it's a Wookie

Now I just need to find a cyberpunk game with an inattentive GM ...


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 18, 2010)

EvilQAGuy said:


> TWMAGCC (That Would Make A Good Character Concept): a vampiric female robot made in Japan that's programmed to think it's a Wookie
> 
> Now I just need to find a cyberpunk game with an inattentive GM ...




I'm sure Japan has already produced a variety of content along those lines.


----------



## GrimGent (Aug 18, 2010)

shidaku said:


> I'm sure Japan has already produced a variety of content along those lines.



I'm sure that you can randomly roll up a character like that in at least one Japanese tabletop RPG: _Maid_, in which _all_ the PCs are female by default.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 18, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> Of all those not-me characters, the _female_ choice is the one that raises more eyebrows?




Well, for some the Romani might be a bit questionable.  All the others, I poitout again, aren't real.  When you try to play something real, you run up against the player's real-world expectations and hangups.  When you play something clearly imginary, you don't have as much of that.


----------



## pacdidj (Aug 18, 2010)

I gotta ask, for those of you who are creeped out by players playing cross-gendered characters, or find their portrayals unbelievable, are you creeped out when an author portrays a character of opposite sex in their novels? Do you find their characters unbelievable?

Is Harry Potter a creepy/believable character?
What about Usula LeGuin's protagonist Shevek from _The Dispossessed?
_For those that have read it, what about Amy Shaftoe from Neal Stephenson's _Cryptonomicon?_
How about Lois Bujold'scharacter Miles Vorkosigan?
Is Galadriel believable/creepy (in a sexual way)?

I mean seriously, are those of you in this camp asserting that any time a man tries to see/portray things from a woman's perspective or vice versa, they've got some weird sex hang up? Or that they do so uniformly unconvincingly? What gives?


----------



## S'mon (Aug 18, 2010)

pacdidj said:


> I gotta ask, for those of you who are creeped out by players playing cross-gendered characters, or find their portrayals unbelievable, are you creeped out when an author portrays a character of opposite sex in their novels? Do you find their characters unbelievable?
> 
> Is Harry Potter a creepy/believable character?
> What about Usula LeGuin's protagonist Shevek from _The Dispossessed?
> ...




I'm not your intended target, but of the three I'm familiar with I think Harry Potter is fine in an Enid Blyton/Sparrowhawk sort of way, Galadriel is fine in a pre-Raphaelite sort of way, but in the one book I read of Miles Vorkosigan I found him completely unbelievable, and his universe even worse, a real Mary Sue-verse.


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 18, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Well, for some the Romani might be a bit questionable.  All the others, I poitout again, aren't real.  When you try to play something real, you run up against the player's real-world expectations and hangups.  When you play something clearly imginary, you don't have as much of that.




A female elf is no more real than a male one.  The fact that it has one more component that you do not, and a rather irreverent one, is rather meaningless.

This question should really not be "is it okay to play a female character if you're male?" but "why do you think people shouldn't?"  Because to be honest nobody has actually given THAT question a real answer.  We've got "it's offensive" which is entirely personal opinion, though I'd like to see a little reasoning behind it, and we've got "because I don't do it well." Which is a better answer but still a lacking one, why do you think your skills are the best of the best?  And we've got "because I've seen other people do it badly." which like the previous statement, could demonstrate anything from bad players to simple luck of the draw.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Aug 18, 2010)

pacdidj said:


> I gotta ask, for those of you who are creeped out by players playing cross-gendered characters, or find their portrayals unbelievable, are you creeped out when an author portrays a character of opposite sex in their novels? Do you find their characters unbelievable?
> 
> Is Harry Potter a creepy/believable character?
> What about Usula LeGuin's protagonist Shevek from _The Dispossessed?
> ...




No.

Yes.

Never read "The Dispossessed" Nor any of the other books.

What gives?

Social norms, mostly.

Social norms generally tend to define roles for each gender. It would be the same thing if a Caucasian decided to be a black guy for a while, complete with making his skin black with makeup effects, how else do you think it would be?

As for me, I just won't play opposite genders anymore because it's not really playing the female that bothers me, it's all the stupid comments and the other guys role playing to hit on my character. 

But when you take on the role of another person, it does really open your eyes to some things. For example, the male's expectation that the only thing that a woman for is for sex. When you experience that for yourself, you really don't know what it's like.

Then it starts giving you the creeps because it's just not normal to be on the receiving end.


----------



## Banshee16 (Aug 18, 2010)

I'm surprised the whole "working out psychological issues" thing even comes out.  Players don't need to be playing characters of the other gender to work out psychological issues.

I've had lots of players with whom it was quite obvious they were working out something.  Whether it's being an elf, a wizard, the powerful fighter who is the leader of the party, when in real life you've never kissed a girl and are a couch potato.....

I mean....really, it's a fantasy game.  When we play, unless we're rolling up stats for ourselves and using the campaign setting "Earth: No slice of magic" we're pretending to be someone else.

There have been posts on these boards talking about how, if we looked critically at events taking place in a game, the average party of adventurers commits X many crimes each session.  Well, isn't that in itself a form of psychological issue being worked out?

In the game, we pretend to be something else, and many of the rules for civil discourse and behaviour are taken away.  Don't like how that thug is talking to your buddy in a bar?  Start a brawl.  Trying to stop that robber who's running away with your treasured magic sword?  Fireball him.  Like the personal possessions of that goblin you see?  He's a goblin.  Kill him and take his stuff.  PCs are rarely punished for many of these acts.....so by extension, the game itself allows us to toy with behaviour that wouldn't be acceptable in the real world.  I'm sure for many players there's a ind of catharsis involved in that.

I'm not sure that playing other genders really matters in any way....unless the players are being creepy about it, as stated above.  The only time I've seen a DM ban it, the face that he did so was more of an insight into his own personality than anything else.  He was also the same guy who I remember called me a retard (in real life) for being polite with a police officer who had stopped me for driving a little fast.........because yelling and swearing at a cop who's about to give you a ticket is just such a brilliant idea   So, there were issues with that person, and how they ran their game was just one sign.  I think he also had a game where he only wanted to allow players to play male humans or male halflings.  That's it.  No other choices.

Personally, when I DM, I care less about *what* someone wants to play, than about how they play.  If they're going to play a female, or a centaur, or whatever, I'd prefer they at least *try* to RP the character.....rather than just sit there and role dice and walk over to their laptop to play World of Warcraft while we're not in active combats, etc. etc.

Hmm.....guess I just vented about a few issues myself 

Banshee


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Aug 19, 2010)

pacdidj said:


> are you creeped out when an author portrays a character of opposite sex in their novels?



No.



> Do you find their characters unbelievable?



Sometimes.  That's true for "all their character" for some authors.  I do think it's more difficult for most or all authors -- in novels, where there's time for deep characterization -- to create and portray cross-gender characters.



> Is Harry Potter a creepy/believable character?



Creepy?  No?  Believable?  No, but it has nothing to do with the character being male (or to do with the series being in the fantasy genre).  I think Rowling does a stellar job with Ron (and Hermione).



> Is Galadriel believable/creepy (in a sexual way)?



Why do you keep juxtaposing "creepy" and "believable"?  Aren't you intending to ask if these characters are "creepy/unbelievable"?

Galadriel is the coolest character in _LotR_, book and movie.  Neither creepy nor unbelievable.



> I mean seriously, are those of you in this camp asserting that any time a man tries to see/portray things from a woman's perspective or vice versa, they've got some weird sex hang up?



_Has_ anybody asserted that? And what "camp," exactly?  As far as I can tell, nearly every single person who's posted in this thread that doesn't enjoy having men portray women PCs has had distinctly different reasons and feelings on it.



> Or that they do so uniformly unconvincingly?



IME, men roleplay female PCs uniformly unconvincingly, and either creep me out or offend me (or both) when doing so.  The only exceptions have been farcical games, when everybody is playing primarily for laughs.

I forgot to mention: I would (and am) creeped out and/or offended by cross-gender work in film or theatre.  (I am not, some might say oddly, creeped out by flicks like _Transamerica_ or _Boys Don't Cry_.)  I'm an English geek, but I wouldn't have enjoyed most of Shakespeare's work live in Elizabethan England.  Of course, his female characters almost uniformly suck anyway.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 19, 2010)

shidaku said:


> A female elf is no more real than a male one.  The fact that it has one more component that you do not, and a rather irreverent one, is rather meaningless.




Indeed. My wife played a male dwarf. I can't really figure out how that would be more challenging than playing any other dwarf. In fact, if you assume different sexual behavior by dwarves, playing a dwarf of your own gender might actually trick you into thinking you are more competent than you are. What, exactly, does a "manly" elf look like?

And I don't buy the argument that the distinction is real/unreal. Do people object to ...?

non-police officers playing police officers?
non-criminals playing criminals?
non-superheroes playing superheroes?
suburbanites playing rangers?

Even if you played a police officer as a coffee-swilling, donut-eating bully, portrayed with a total lack of understanding of real police work, I don't think you are likely to raise objections with real police officers the way the male/female thing is presented.

I think, when it comes down to it, many gamers are simply hung up on sexual stereotypes. They are so hung up on gender that it doesn't even occur to them that playing a 17th century peasant involves leaps of understanding way beyond shifting gender. At least you and person of opposite gender X live in the same century! There may not be 17th century peasants around to offend, but you can certainly tweak some history fans by a bad portrayal. Frankly, you would be hard-pressed to roleplay any one real person of your choice. 

So I'm going to say the objections are usally based on:
- unjustified beliefs in gender differences so intrinsic they cross species boundaries
- homophobia
- self-consciousness
- sexism

I can't really move away from the idea that one reason someone might object to a man playing a woman, or a woman playing a man, is simply that they believe being less conventionally gendered makes one less of a person.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Aug 19, 2010)

[MENTION=15538]pawsplay[/MENTION]; re your closing statement.

Yep. Lots of that about. Sad really. 

But I would like to say that this thread has been remarkably friendly and flame-free. Not always the case when something like gender roles comes up on these boards. Well done Enworld. Calm, reasonable discussion for the win.


----------



## Dragonblade (Aug 19, 2010)

I don't allow cross-gender PCs for two simple reasons.

1) I have had immature players in the past (both male and female, incidentally) who played opposite gender just to play up the most horrible chauvinistic stereotype they could and I'd like to avoid that in the future.

2) Even if you are a mature player, not having to remember which gender a PC is in relation to the player simply makes it easier for me to keep things straight at the table. No pun intended. Since I'm the DM and I do all the work, I value anything that makes my life easier. Sorry, but there really is no compelling argument a player can make against this.

There is nothing any player can possibly add to my game by playing an opposite gender PC that outweighs the convenience it affords me not to have to track PC vs. player gender.

And thats pretty much it, really. Expediency and a desire to head off problems.


----------



## Subtlepanic (Aug 19, 2010)

Skipping pages here, apologies.

Most girls I've played with have created male characters. Why is this?

Is it because they're playing a "man's game"? They want to fit in?
Is it because they want to fulfil some sort of macho empowerment fantasy?
Do girls find female medieval heroes boring, and want something more traditional?
If you pitch "medieval fantasy" to most people, do they naturally think of male archetypes?


----------



## JustKim (Aug 19, 2010)

Subtlepanic said:


> Skipping pages here, apologies.
> 
> Most girls I've played with have created male characters. Why is this?
> 
> Is it because they're playing a "man's game"? They want to fit in?



I don't think the way you've phrased it is especially accurate but you're on the right track there. There's a fear that coming into a man's game as a woman you will be playing the role of _the woman_, and many women would rather shrug off those expectations, that social pressure, and play a character who's a blank slate, a character who's technically male but essentially genderless.

In my experience once everybody is comfortable together, that defensive barrier breaks down and you see more female characters. But depending on the group, that barrier may need to stay up forever.


----------



## Banshee16 (Aug 19, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I think, when it comes down to it, many gamers are simply hung up on sexual stereotypes. They are so hung up on gender that it doesn't even occur to them that playing a 17th century peasant involves leaps of understanding way beyond shifting gender. At least you and person of opposite gender X live in the same century! There may not be 17th century peasants around to offend, but you can certainly tweak some history fans by a bad portrayal. Frankly, you would be hard-pressed to roleplay any one real person of your choice.




That's an excellent point.  The book Pillars of the Earth is a real eye opener, with respect to showing some of nitty gritty of what life was/may have been like.  And the differences in psychology between people now and then were likely very significant....much moreso than gender.

The culture was very very different from now.  Life was very cheap.  Heck, something like reading and writing is a simple example.  Back then, what.....5% of the world could read and write, compared to now?  That has significant implications for how people even think, or process information.

I will say that some things can be kind of....weird with players running characters of the other gender.  As others have commented, if it's a guy portraying a female PC as wanton, or seducing other characters or things like that, then yeah, it can be a bit uncomfortable.  But I really haven't run into scenarios like that.

Banshee


----------



## InVinoVeritas (Aug 19, 2010)

I play about 50/50 (with the occasional "other" thrown in, like a Drazi or a robot). 

Most of the time, it makes no difference whatsoever. It's just a character concept, and it's really just flavor. However, once it was really interesting.

I played a female character in Exalted. I designed this happy-go-lucky gadabout leech who was a genius in getting out of situations scot-free. At the last minute, I thought the character should be female (the cute redhead named Wee Jas I mentioned elsewhere). 

Well, the first thing that happened is that Jas met another PC, a faerie who manifested as male and dazzlingly beautiful. A couple die rolls later, and blam, Jas was smitten. 

Boy, did the faerie regret it.

I played it more as an innocent crush than anything, where she always made sure he was comfortable, confided all sorts of inane things to him, and always ended up on his team when the party split. 

Then, she ended up getting separated from the party, cornered by a bunch of other faeries who wanted to do him harm. They bullied her, promising her anything if she would just betray him. What they didn't realize was that although she couldn't fight back, she was still a master of escape. She negotiated a charm so that she could always see through her paramour's glamour. Then, she betrayed him... into the hands of some death lords who owed her a favor. They simply returned him to her. 

Jas ran up to him, threw her arms around him, and gave him a big kiss. "Miss me?" she asked.

He shuddered, "...I promise I'll hit next time."

His faerie foes were livid. They promised to destroy her life forever. She simply looked through their glamour and waited for them to do anything real. They never could conceive of doing so.

It didn't end there. He tried to impress upon Jas about the horror of the faeries, and drew a picture showing her as completely and utterly mangled in a hundred different ways. She looked at the picture, smirked, and drew him a picture of a snowflake. He got the picture.

Jas and her paramour separated for a while. Faeries became a regular part of her life. She became a complete scourge to faeries. She learned how to disintegrate them with cold iron, and developed a liking to "faerie dust." She became known as the mysterious Iron Maiden, one of the greatest enemies to all faeries. 

When she met up with him again, he looked at her, horrified at what she had become. She just batted her eyelashes and said, "Don't worry, you're safe. I like you." 
"You know, I also have allies that are faeries. You haven't been killing them, too, have you?"
"Mmmhmm..." she replied, noncommitally. 

The romance went from him being in control to him not daring to cross her.

This would have NEVER played out this way, if Jas had been male. Sometimes, gender does matter, and creates for more interesting stories.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 19, 2010)

Banshee16 said:


> As others have commented, if it's a guy portraying a female PC as wanton, or seducing other characters or things like that, then yeah, it can be a bit uncomfortable.  But I really haven't run into scenarios like that.
> 
> Banshee




Actually, I DID do something like both of those.

My HERO PC- Hazard- was a 7' alien gladiatrix who had won her freedom and was now "retired" to the comfy backwater Earth...and she thought the gadgeteer in the power-armor suit was cute as hell.  Her species was one in which the females were much bigger than the males (like many species on Earth), so she had a reverse-chauvinistic view of human males...but _HIS_ PC had proven himself worthy of her attention.

Think of the relationship of Whorf & Dax through the looking glass with a dash of _Moonlighting_ and/or _Cheers_ and you're on the right track.

They never did anything- she was aware that humans were too..._fragile_...for her attention- but their interplay was hilarious for...well...at least the two of us.

(FWIW, both PCs were played by straight males.)

In a GURPS Cyberpunk campaign, I played a female "Street Samurai" who was 1 part Elric of Melnibone and one part biker-chick slut (based on someone I knew personally).  Because of her cybernetic enhancements, she felt safe anywhere, so chased men like some men chase women.  That, coupled with her Harley and black Monofilament Vibra-Sword made her a LOT of fun.  The only men she actually seduced, though, were _*N*_PCs.


----------



## nai_cha (Aug 19, 2010)

Subtlepanic said:


> Most girls I've played with have created male characters. Why is this?
> 
> Is it because they're playing a "man's game"? They want to fit in?
> Is it because they want to fulfil some sort of macho empowerment fantasy?




I can't speak for other women, especially since I game with a group that's mostly female, but my creation of a male character stemmed from no other reasons than (1) let's try something different and (2) LOL I wanna see what Chuck Bass on Athas would be like.

However, I've seen other women sharing their experiences about playing male characters so that they could simply play with the group, without all the baggage that sometimes comes with playing a female character e.g. getting hit on by other PCs, other skeevier/more unwelcome advances, &c.

Sometimes it's reached the point where women gamers (I recall seeing this on Bad RPRs Suck) advise newbie women gamers to just default to male characters instead of working out issues that make them uncomfortable (like sexist remarks or sexual assault in game), because it's easier than requesting that their fellow players tone down the douchebaggery or looking for a group that's douche-free. Which I think is a shame. People should be able to play male (or female) characters because they want to, not just to avoid getting hassled.

Like a lot of people on this thread have stated, playing someone of the opposite gender can be done and done well. Sexuality and gender are fluid IRL, why shouldn't they be in RPGs? And gender's only one part of a character, just like class, race, personality traits &c. Why get so hung up on that one aspect?


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Aug 19, 2010)

I am a male who plays female characters because about 50% of all people in ANY world are female.  Even in oppressive, chauvanistic, male dominated, misogynistic D&D games and game settings there's plenty of room for NORMAL female characters - perhaps even a NEED for such representation.

While I once was a teenager who along with my fellow male conspirators indulged in my share of peurile demonstrations of immaturity (the details of which I'd never care to repeat to any woman that I didn't want to hate me) neither I nor anybody I ever gamed with has _quite_ crossed the line into using female characters for uncomfortable, self-indulgent sexual perversion.  _Dangerously close_ a few times, but not quite over the line.

I guess I and my gaming groups have been sensible and/or well-adjusted enough that I've never needed or bothered to give it more than a passing thought.  Only in recent years have I seen that enough people seem to have had that uncomfortable or even sickening experience to actually pose the question as to whether the entire possibility of running a character of the opposite gender is suspect.  I suppose all I can say to that is I'm glad I'm not you.

I think I can actually credit the DM I first played under.  In the EARLY early days of 1E we happened to find a player who did indeed try to turn the opportunity of open roleplaying into a polluted mental playground.  The DM's response was, "What the hell do you want me to describe for you here?  FINE - you moan, you groan, you ___!"  That of course put an immediate end to such stupidity and we never really had much problem with that afterwards.  Beyond general teen male infantile humor in the absence of the presence of women, of course.


----------



## cattoy (Aug 19, 2010)

I like it when good roleplayers do it.

I don't like playing with bad roleplayers, no matter what gender they are/play.

That about covers it.


----------



## GrimGent (Aug 19, 2010)

Dragonblade said:


> Even if you are a mature player, not having to remember which gender a PC is in relation to the player simply makes it easier for me to keep things straight at the table.



You know, I've never really understood the complaints about this problem, since the characters don't necessarily resemble their players in any _other_ respect, either, sometimes to the point that they aren't even remotely human. Not remembering enough about the PCs to keep in mind that the short guy on the other side of the table isn't playing a dwarf would pretty much render any kind of proper IC interaction impossible, after all.


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Aug 19, 2010)

Dragonblade said:


> 2) Even if you are a mature player, not having to remember which gender a PC is in relation to the player simply makes it easier for me to keep things straight at the table. No pun intended. Since I'm the DM and I do all the work, I value anything that makes my life easier. Sorry, but there really is no compelling argument a player can make against this.
> 
> There is nothing any player can possibly add to my game by playing an opposite gender PC that outweighs the convenience it affords me not to have to track PC vs. player gender.




I'm not trying to be adversarial but is it really that more inconvenient to remember PC vs. player gender when you're already doing that with other PC vs. player differences?

That's "Arwen", not Timmy.  That's a wizard, not a IT guy.  That's an elf, not a human.  It doesn't seem like adding "He's playing a woman, not a man." would be too much extra to remember.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 19, 2010)

GrimGent said:


> You know, I've never really understood the complaints about this problem, since the characters don't necessarily resemble their players in any _other_ respect, either, sometimes to the point that they aren't even remotely human. Not remembering enough about the PCs to keep in mind that the short guy on the other side of the table isn't playing a dwarf would pretty much render any kind of proper IC interaction impossible, after all.




As far as I can tell, it's purely a pronoun thing. When referring to a PC by pronoun (which happens a lot), you don't have to remember species or appearance or personality, but you do have to remember sex. Male elves, tieflings, lizardfolk, and floating brain monsters* are all "him." A human woman is "her."

Personally, I don't think this is sufficient justification to ban cross-gender RPing, but I admit it can be a bit of a nuisance.

[size=-2]*I'm not sure how you determine the sex of a floating brain monster, but if you manage it and discover that it's male, you call it "him."[/size]


----------



## GrimGent (Aug 19, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> As far as I can tell, it's purely a pronoun thing.



That would at least explain why it's never been a problem for me... Face to face, I run games in Finnish, a language which doesn't _have_ gender-specific pronouns. Online, I might not even conclusively know whether the players on the other side of the Internet are male or female.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 19, 2010)

GrimGent said:


> I run games in Finnish, a language which doesn't _have_ gender-specific pronouns.



Cool! I clearly need to learn Finnish


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 19, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> I'm not sure how you determine the sex of a floating brain monster, but if you manage it and discover that it's male, you call it "him."



You look at it's corpus callosum...


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Aug 19, 2010)

Males should only play male PCs, females play female PCs.  If not, the slippery slope will lead to short people playing half-orcs, tall people playing dwarves and halflings, scrawny nerd geeks playing burly warriors, and atheists playing clerics.  

We cannot allow that kind of behavior to mess up our fantasy role-playing games.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 19, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Cool! I clearly need to learn Finnish



Ok. 

Minä (me), sinä (you), hän (him/her), me (us), te (plural you), he (them).

Those are the normal written language ones. You can use them for people or animals. Though if you do use them for animals the wrong context can make you look a bit silly, especially with the plurals (but that's not really different from other languages).

Then there are these, mostly used in spoken language, which you can use for people, animals, or objects, entirely equally:

Tämä/tää (this), tuo/toi (that), se (it), nämä/nää (these), nuo/noi (those), ne (them).

So if there was a horse, a man, a woman, and a tree in front of you, and I said "kato tota" ("look at that", 'tota' deriving from 'tuo/toi'), you'd have absolutely no idea which one I was referring to. Well actually, if I said "kato tota" in any situation without actually pointing at something the same would apply. You can't use it properly without context. Which isn't to say that people don't. 


Edit: oh, and just to make it clear, tämä/tää is a regional dialect difference, not a sexual one.

Also, since I apparently suck at parsing, if you refer to yourself/yourselves you have to use the written language one (or a regional version).


----------



## Hussar (Aug 19, 2010)

Hang on a tick here.

People are dogpiling in here saying that if anyone has even the slightest problem with someone playing across gender, they must have huge problems with players playing anything that they aren't.  

This completely ignores anyones possible experiences.  Several posters have chimed in to say that they don't like gender bending characters simply because every time they've seen it done, it's been done very, very poorly - either creepy or incredibly immaturely.

Is this really hard to believe?

I mean, I loathe elves in D&D for EXACTLY the same reason.  I'm so sick of players playing humans that see in the dark.  Nothing about the character actually denotes the fact that he isn't human, lives for centuries, comes from a culture that predates human cultures by millenia (true in most D&D settings) or in the slightest way draws any attention to the fact that this character isn't human.

In the same way, I've seen more than my share of female characters that in no way actually played up the fact that they were female.  To the point of other players being surprised on the rare occassion when it came up in play.

It's not that gender-bending character's are a bad thing.  They're not.  It's an interesting challenge.  But, that's the point right there.  It's a challenge.  If the player can't be bothered bringing  a major element of the character to the table, why bother in the first place?

Either do it right, put in a bit of effort, or forget about it.  Doing a half-assed at best job just annoys the crap out of me as a DM.  

So, snide shots about being uncomfortable with my own sexuality aside, it's got nothing to do with the player playing something different, and everything to do with the player putting something on a character sheet and then never, ever referencing it again.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 19, 2010)

jonesy said:


> Also, since I apparently suck at parsing, if you refer to yourself/yourselves you have to use the written language one (or a regional version).



Unless you point at yourself and say "tämä tykkää jäätelöstä".

"This one likes ice cream."


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 19, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I mean, I loathe elves in D&D for EXACTLY the same reason.  I'm so sick of players playing humans that see in the dark.




Right but do you ban people from playing Elves? Dwarves? etc? 

People ban cross gender characters perhaps because they have seen it done badly in the past, but I've seen bad roleplaying of all sorts in the past, why single out cross gender characters for the ban?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 19, 2010)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> The DM's response was, "What the hell do you want me to describe for you here? FINE - you moan, you groan, you ___!" That of course put an immediate end to such stupidity and we never really had much problem with that afterwards.





I find this to be offensive. Why is the DM describing the reactions of a PC to "stimuli" in the game world? Isn't that the player's job? Be as lewd as you like but please don't usurp player agency.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Aug 19, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Either do it right, put in a bit of effort, or forget about it.  Doing a half-assed at best job just annoys the crap out of me as a DM.
> 
> So, snide shots about being uncomfortable with my own sexuality aside, it's got nothing to do with the player playing something different, and everything to do with the player putting something on a character sheet and then never, ever referencing it again.



What is to you a "half-assed" rp job might be the best another player can do.  It seems odd that a player would be barred from a PC concept just because of his inability to "correctly" roleplay something on the character sheet.   The PC may well fully exist in the player's mind, whether or not he can successfully and overtly rp all the PC's characteristics.

Now, as many have said, when character selection (gender, race, status, alignment, or _anything_ really) crosses lines that make people at the table uncomfortable in real life, well that surely needs to be stopped. (Yes, I've suffered through that. Ick.).  And if a DM wants to restrict such selection in order to avoid those issues, that's totally cool; I understand _that_ rationale.

But violating the DM's idea of good RP is not, imho, not a good reason to reject a character concept.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 19, 2010)

Bagpuss said:


> Right but do you ban people from playing Elves? Dwarves? etc?
> 
> People ban cross gender characters perhaps because they have seen it done badly in the past, but I've seen bad roleplaying of all sorts in the past, why single out cross gender characters for the ban?




Well, to be fair, I did design one of my homebrews to remove elves entirely from the game for pretty much precisely this reason.  I dressed it up in all sorts of in game reasoning, but, the primary reason was I just hated elves that much.  



			
				The Orc Within said:
			
		

> But violating the DM's idea of good RP is not, imho, not a good reason to reject a character concept.




How many chances do you give someone though?  I'm not saying it has to be Shakespeare here, but, there should be at least enough of a personality in the character to delineate the character's gender, species and general culture.  

Heck, I don't really care if it's done badly.  I care that it's there AT ALL.  There's a million ways to play a character, and probably most of them are not exactly going to win an Oscar.  I'm groovy with that.  All I want is the player to put in enough of an effort that no one at the table is ever surprised by basic facts about the character that should be pretty obvious from casual observation.

I really don't think that's too much to ask in a role playing game.  If your character is physically strong, I expect that to affect your portrayal of the character, just as if the character is physically weak.  If the character is female, there are a million and one ways to bring that to the table, some great, some, not so much.  

I'm just asking for one.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 19, 2010)

A lot of the comments in this thread are along the lines of "because I've experienced players doing a bad job of roleplaying a different gender I no longer accept it".

Sheesh. You get better at roleplaying by roleplaying. Roleplaying a different gender might come with a huge difficulty modifier, but it gets better once you get better.

If someone wants to try it, and then sucks at it, you don't then outright deny it.


----------



## Abraxas (Aug 19, 2010)

jonesy said:


> A lot of the comments in this thread are along the lines of "because I've experienced players doing a bad job of roleplaying a different gender I no longer accept it".
> 
> Sheesh. You get better at roleplaying by roleplaying. Roleplaying a different gender might come with a huge difficulty modifier, but it gets better once you get better.
> 
> If someone wants to try it, and then sucks at it, you don't then outright deny it.



The objections to cross gender characters really aren't different from the the objections to banning any other type of character - but few people jump all over someone for banning dwarves, dragonborn, kender, evil characters, monks, etc, etc...not that you are jumping all over someone

As for not allowing it because of a prior event - how many times does a bad/creepy situation have to occur before it's just easier to not allow it? For some people once is enough.

The following is in response to various statements throughout the thread.

I would be, and am, more ticked that someone would assume I'm sexist or homophobic because I find it easier to not have to deal with it. I also find it just a little jarring to have to switch gears when remembering the guy across the table is running a female PC when running my NPCs. I am uncertain why that is harder to remember but I suspect it has to do with the minimal impact it has except when interacting with the NPCs - Unlike race or class which have mechanical aspects that affect the game pretty much continuously.

IME, I have yet to see a character concept that requires the character to be male or female. IMO, I honestly don't see how a player could need their charatcer to only be male or female that doesn't include elements that I don't care to have in a game I play for entertainment.

YMMV, probably does, and that's fine and dandy


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Aug 19, 2010)

Hussar said:


> How many chances do you give someone though?  I'm not saying it has to be Shakespeare here, but, there should be at least enough of a personality in the character to delineate the character's gender, species and general culture.
> 
> Heck, I don't really care if it's done badly.  I care that it's there AT ALL.  There's a million ways to play a character, and probably most of them are not exactly going to win an Oscar.  I'm groovy with that.  All I want is the player to put in enough of an effort that no one at the table is ever surprised by basic facts about the character that should be pretty obvious from casual observation.
> 
> ...



I guess I've just never seen this problem at the table.  Some players are a bit more, umm, expressive in their RP that others   but I can't imagine someone playing an RPG without some basic attempt at RP, whether that attempt is brilliant, bad, silly, offensive, or whatnot.

But at that point its seems they're either the type to just sit on the sidelines doing more watching than playing (that's where I used to be!); or else they're the type to to play the game more as a purely tactics game.  Either way, it still doesn't bother me much, as long as they're enjoying themselves and not ruining it for others.

Of course, in my experience, players are few and far between so I can't be too terribly picky who I choose to play with. 
A player who's creepy, smells bad, or is an offensive jackass?  No.    
A player who's unable to RP, or not truly interested in RP?  Meh, I think I could work with that.


----------



## Kingreaper (Aug 19, 2010)

Hussar said:


> In the same way, I've seen more than my share of female characters that in no way actually played up the fact that they were female.  To the point of other players being surprised on the rare occassion when it came up in play.
> 
> It's not that gender-bending character's are a bad thing.  They're not.  It's an interesting challenge.  But, that's the point right there.  It's a challenge.  If the player can't be bothered bringing  a major element of the character to the table, why bother in the first place?



Maybe it's just my life experience (I've had friends who I thought were male turn out to be female and visa versa*); but I really don't think it IS that major a part of the character.
It's more important than hair-colour, but it's not even close to the gap between a human and an elf.
In an egalitarian society a much smaller gap than the gap between a football jock and a computer nerd.

*and some who when asked "are they male or female?" my most accurate answer would be "Maybe" 

How would one bring gender to the table in your opinion? 
I'm having trouble thinking of any significant aspect of bringing gender to the table which isn't:
A) Mainly about the characters sexuality (my friend cross-playing as a cross-dressing gay male had the characters gender come up reasonably often due to flirting with the other PCs who were all male, and mostly straight)
B) Something anatomical that is glossed over in most gaming
C) Simply stereotyping the gender
D) Playing a race with large sexual dimorphism, or huge cultural pressure towards gender roles (ie. the Drow)
or
E) The GM bringing up the gender through NPC reactions.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 19, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> I also find it just a little jarring to have to switch gears when remembering the guy across the table is running a female PC when running my NPCs. I am uncertain why that is harder to remember but I suspect it has to do with the minimal impact it has except when interacting with the NPCs - Unlike race or class which have mechanical aspects that affect the game pretty much continuously.



Sure. But that's a different thing. That's about player motivation to actually play as the thing he claims to want to play as.

If a player roleplays something, anything, which has an aspect which should be immediately apparent to the other PC's, and then neglects to make that aspect immediately apparent, then that aspect shouldn't belong to the character sheet in the first place. He has chosen a character he clearly has no motivation to portray.

If you go through a campaign playing a short human, and at the end of the campaign someone says "you were short?" then you weren't. Because if you were, everyone would have known. Therefore what it says on your sheet doesn't match up to what you were actually playing.

One of the best character concepts I've seen was by a girl who intentionally left out gender from her characters sheet. On equipment she'd written various types of clothing which were the type that wouldn't really say anything at all about gender. The miniature she used was someone in a deep dark hooded cape. It was a strraight up human fighter, who was always kneedeep in combat. She portrayed the voice of the character as deeper than her own normal voice. The campaign went on for a long time before gender ever came up. Some players were surprised when others said they'd thought it was a he. When the characters asked him/her he/she refused to reveal it, saying it was none of their business, and that it would be against the customs of his/her people to reveal it to outsiders. The player never revealed what it was. It was a great mystery, and a good concept.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 19, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I find this to be offensive. Why is the DM describing the reactions of a PC to "stimuli" in the game world? Isn't that the player's job? Be as lewd as you like but please don't usurp player agency.




Must... spread... XP...


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 19, 2010)

jonesy said:


> Unless you point at yourself and say "tämä tykkää jäätelöstä".
> 
> "This one likes ice cream."




That's almost poetry.


----------



## Abraxas (Aug 19, 2010)

jonesy said:


> Sure. But that's a different thing. That's about player motivation to actually play as the thing he claims to want to play as.
> 
> If a player roleplays something, anything, which has an aspect which should be immediately apparent to the other PC's, and then neglects to make that aspect immediately apparent, then that aspect shouldn't belong to the character sheet in the first place. He has chosen a character he clearly has no motivation to portray.
> 
> If you go through a campaign playing a short human, and at the end of the campaign someone says "you were short?" then you weren't. Because if you were, everyone would have known. Therefore what it says on your sheet doesn't match up to what you were actually playing.



How do you roleplay "short" or things like "brunette" or "blue eyed"? These are things, IME, that are described when the character is first introduced and then really have little impact from then on. I'm playing a rogue that is 5'6" - other than me bringing it up for who knows what reason - it isn't going to enter into the game. I could choose to make it a character trait, that the character is defensive about being short, but what does that really bring to the game - not much as far as my fun is concerned. I am much more interested in the character being an amoral bastard who killed his family (because he is psychotic and believed they were doppelgangers) and only plays the hero because he gets paid to be violent



jonesy said:


> One of the best character concepts I've seen was by a girl who intentionally left out gender from her characters sheet. On equipment she'd written various types of clothing which were the type that wouldn't really say anything at all about gender. The miniature she used was someone in a deep dark hooded cape. It was a strraight up human fighter, who was always kneedeep in combat. She portrayed the voice of the character as deeper than her own normal voice. The campaign went on for a long time before gender ever came up. Some players were surprised when others said they'd thought it was a he. When the characters asked him/her he/she refused to reveal it, saying it was none of their business, and that it would be against the customs of his/her people to reveal it to outsiders. The player never revealed what it was. It was a great mystery, and a good concept.



See this is funny to me. You even said gender didn't come up for a long time - but shouldn't it have, if it was really important? This concept _really_ doesn't require the character only be male or female - it just requires that the character hide the truth.

Of course it depends on the type of RPG, but in any involving the characters getting injured the healer/medic is probably going to find out. And it really isn't much of a mystery if the player just refuses to tell you - its not much different than the player not telling you the characters age, height, hair color, etc and just describing the character as concealing it.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 19, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> How do you roleplay "short" or things like "brunette" or "blue eyed"? These are things, IME, that are described when the character is first introduced and then really have little impact from then on.



How would blue eyed and brunette affect the game? Half the time I don't even remember those in the real world.

But height has mechanical implications. What if there had been climbing involved? Or tight tunnels only he could stand in?

If your campaign doesn't involve gender issues then gender isn't an issue. If it does, then it is.

Hmm. I wonder what kind of a campaign one could make that revolved around the color of PC's eyes..



> You even said gender didn't come up for a long time - but shouldn't it have, if it was really important?



But that's just it. For the purposes of that campaign it wasn't important, until the other characters took notice and made it so. The point is, she'd thought of it long before it ever became an issue. She'd been prepared to never make it an issue.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 19, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> I would be, and am, more ticked that someone would assume I'm sexist or homophobic because I find it easier to not have to deal with it. I also find it just a little jarring to have to switch gears when remembering the guy across the table is running a female PC when running my NPCs. I am uncertain why that is harder to remember but I suspect it has to do with the minimal impact it has except when interacting with the NPCs - Unlike race or class which have mechanical aspects that affect the game pretty much continuously.




That's a very different take than I have. To me, I have a much easier time remembering a character's gender than whatever powers he or she possesses; it's part of the overall visual package, usually part of the character's personality, and often part of the original inspiration of the character. I'd be really worried if I couldn't even remember a character's gender; I love seeing personalities at the gaming table, not ciphers. 

Of course, "except when interacting with the NPCs" (or for that matter, "except when interacting with one's fellow PCs") is probably a very variable yardstick. 



> IME, I have yet to see a character concept that requires the character to be male or female. IMO, I honestly don't see how a player could need their charatcer to only be male or female that doesn't include elements that I don't care to have in a game I play for entertainment.




There's a character in a game I run who is loosely modeled on Ezio Auditore from Assassin's Creed II. He started out in the countryside because he was caught in the wrong young woman's bed, and sent out to stay with a family friend until the scandal died down. There's a strong tension there because his host's daughter clearly finds him attractive, but naturally his host is very protective of his daughter's virtue.

I think it would be a very interesting character if you changed the genders responsible: is she a lesbian or bisexual, and still interested in daughters? Or is she a temptation to the landowner's son? But the character itself would be distinctly different. Even though the game has been completely PG-rated in terms of sexual content (though, like any D&D game, pretty much R-rated when blades are cutting up human flesh), even innocent sexual tension changes its dynamic with gender, and creates different situations.


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 19, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> IME, I have yet to see a character concept that requires the character to be male or female.




Do you not read books, watch films, learn any history?

Mulan could not have been be anything but female and still be the same character neither Jean of Arc. 

Priestess of Idun as I mentioned earlier. With the release of Dark Sun Campaign Setting how about a Templar from the city state of Nibenay? And those are just ones where there is a gender restriction. 

Of the top of my head, in the *Don't Rest Your Head* RPG  (currently reading), a working exec Mum that can't sleep because she is so stressed trying balancing work and home life, while fighting against a glass ceiling in the office. It would not be the same character concept if it was a male exec.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Aug 19, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> IME, I have yet to see a character concept that requires the character to be male or female.



Nor have I, but I just don't even _care_.  I disallow all sorts of character concepts -- and so does every other decent GM out there -- and yet an infinite number of character concepts remain.

"I can't play a psychotic loner who has no real reason to stay with the group?"  No, you can't.

"I can't play a total pacifist, who literally would not hurt a fly (and hates when others do), in your World's Largest Dungeon campaign?"  No, you can't.

"I can't play an adult red dragon?"  No, you can't.

"I can't play a super-speed character who is very difficult to hit, but dies when he gets hit?"  No, you can't.

And on, and on.  By contrast, "I can't play a cross-gender PC?" has almost never been an issue in our local games.  I literally cannot remember the last time someone asked to play cross-gender in our local games, much less went into a depressed emo tailspin over it not being allowed.


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 19, 2010)

jonesy said:


> Hmm. I wonder what kind of a campaign one could make that revolved around the color of PC's eyes..




Big Trouble in Little China!!!!


----------



## Abraxas (Aug 19, 2010)

jonesy said:


> How would blue eyed and brunette affect the game? Half the time I don't even remember those in the real world.



But they are things that are readily apparent - that's all I was saying.



jonesy said:


> But height has mechanical implications. What if there had been climbing involved? Or tight tunnels only he could stand in?



Depends on the game though - in D&D whether you're 5'0" or 6'6" doesn't affect those things - unless the DM goes out of his way to make them.



jonesy said:


> If your campaign doesn't involve gender issues then gender isn't an issue. If it does, then it is.



So, if gender isn't an issue in the game I run and it makes it somewhat easier if people play same gendered characters - it shouldn't be a problem if that's all I allow. Some of the statements in this thread make it sound like that is a completely unreasonable position and possibly indicative of me having a "problem"



jonesy said:


> Hmm. I wonder what kind of a campaign one could make that revolved around the color of PC's eyes.



Probably one that if you described would Godwin the thread. 




jonesy said:


> But that's just it. For the purposes of that campaign it wasn't important, until the other characters took notice and made it so. The point is, she'd thought of it long before it ever became an issue. She'd been prepared to never make it an issue.



So how would the DM requiring same gender PCs have affected that? The only effect you described is the interaction between players - but would the campaign have collapsed with out that? Would the campaign have been less fun? Maybe, but then again couldn't it have also been fun if the DM played that aspect of the character up with NPC interactions - even if the other player's knew what the character was?


----------



## jonesy (Aug 19, 2010)

Bagpuss said:


> Big Trouble in Little China!!!!



Oooh. Good call.


----------



## GrimGent (Aug 19, 2010)

Hussar said:


> If the character is female, there are a million and one ways to bring that to the table, some great, some, not so much.



And one of those ways, of course, is to play a woman who doesn't emphasize her femininity in any way. Asexuality is a viable option for character concepts, naturally enough. In these discussions about players failing to portray the opposite sex "accurately", it seems all too easily to slip into sweeping generalizations on how men or women _should_ act, according to some set of conventions: "All men behave like _this_" or "No woman would do _that_", when common sense tells that somewhere in the wide world, right at this very moment, people are proving that false.

The old advice still holds true: play a complete person, not some stereotype of a sex or a gender, and it will work out all right.


----------



## Abraxas (Aug 19, 2010)

Bagpuss said:


> Do you not read books, watch films, learn any history?



Why yes, yes I do - and it would have been nice if you would have included the rest of my statement, the part where I said "IMO, I honestly don't see how a player could need their character to only be male or female that doesn't include elements that I don't care to have in a game I play for entertainment."

I have been talking about RPGs where gender discrimination is not the norm. I was not talking about the real world or books or movies where gender stereotypes and discriminations are a reality or explored. In fact those are exactly the types of issues I don't want in my RPG entertainment - and I have stated such previously.



Bagpuss said:


> Priestess of Idun as I mentioned earlier. With the release of Dark Sun Campaign Setting how about a Templar from the city state of Nibenay? And those are just ones where there is a gender restriction.



These are mechanical restrictions placed by the campaign and the DM - they could be removed and have no real effect on the game. Why are these restrictions acceptable but a same gender restriction is not? Would you say there is something wrong with a DM who wouldn't allow a male Priest of Idunn because a player thought it would be an interesting challenge to play such a character?

This is all a preference issue, people don't need to be insulting because another's preference differs from yours.

Good Day


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Aug 19, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I find this to be offensive. Why is the DM describing the reactions of a PC to "stimuli" in the game world? Isn't that the player's job? Be as lewd as you like but please don't usurp player agency.



This was the point at issue.  The player had his character dallying with prostitutes and expected the DM to begin describing details of the "encounter" which otherwise had no bearing on anything happening in the game.  It had nothing to do with usurpation of roleplaying by _dictating_ PC reaction.  It had everything to do with the DM hitting the player upside the head with the cluehammer to declare to him that the situation did not warrant anything but _superficial_ acknowledgement of the expenditure of money and the characters actions/location during the night.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 20, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> IME, I have yet to see a character concept that requires the character to be male or female. IMO, I honestly don't see how a player could need their charatcer to only be male or female that doesn't include elements that I don't care to have in a game I play for entertainment.
> 
> YMMV, probably does, and that's fine and dandy




You obviously missed the example I gave earlier- the spellcaster whose mystical ability is innately intertwined with his or her level of sexual activity (based on RW beliefs).

Male PCs of this type only lose their powers temporarily, but their female counterparts are irrevocably changed.

I've played that female mystic- she did NOT play like the boys...

Similar RW mystic traditions linked female spellcasters to their "lunar cycle", their power waxing & waning- or changing completely- at a certain time of the month.

Examples of one or another of these kinds of female-only roles in fiction can be found in Earthsea, DC Comics Vertigo line, Thieves' World, and Xanth.


----------



## Abraxas (Aug 20, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You obviously missed the example I gave earlier- the spellcaster whose mystical ability is innately intertwined with his or her level of sexual activity (based on RW beliefs).
> 
> Male PCs of this type only lose their powers temporarily, but their female counterparts are irrevocably changed.
> 
> ...



I think you missed my response to your post.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 20, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> Just curious why you couldn't substitute male or female into either of those traditions for the sake of the game. Nothing above screams only a woman's magical abilities must be lost or changed permanently or a man's powers are lost temporarily- other than the fact that it may have been described that way in some real world text.




The RW biology which inspired such mysticism, for one- males have no menstrual cycle; males do not bear children...nor the intense pain that childbirth entails.  Ask any shaman who embodies the Font of Life or ask a rabbi why Judaism is traced matrilinearly and you get essentially the same anwer: women- because maternity os a matter of obvious fact while paternity may be nigh impossible to prove.

Taboo after taboo after taboo stem from all of this.

Sure, you could twist things around to buffer your sensibilities, but someone who wants to delve into those RW traditions for their PCs, that twist is probably pure weaksauce.


----------



## Abraxas (Aug 20, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The RW biology which inspired such mysticism, for one- males have no menstrual cycle; males do not bear children...nor the intense pain that childbirth entails.  Ask any shaman who embodies the Font of Life or ask a rabbi why Judaism is traced matrilinearly and you get essentially the same anwer: women- because maternity os a matter of obvious fact while paternity may be nigh impossible to prove.



All of which are elements I don't care to deal with in my RPG gaming entertainment. I don't know what games you've played in are like but lots of biological realities are glossed over and/or outright ignored - and if they weren't I know a few people who would think I was either strange or sexist for bringing them up in a game.

But I do have to ask - what exactly would you be gaining by having your characters powers linked to a menstrual cycle as opposed to just a lunar cycle - or any other cycle for that matter, I'm really confused as to what experience your are trying to achieve. And how do you expect your DM to accommodate this aspect of your character - other than just noting the date and what bonuses/penalties you have - which could apply to any conditional power scheme. 

Also, in a game rampant with magic, paternity may be easily proved - and in the real world isn't there a TV program that suggests maternity isn't an obvious fact until much too late 



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Taboo after taboo after taboo stem from all of this.



There are lots of taboos that I wouldn't want to deal with in a game I play in or run, lots & lots...



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Sure, you could twist things around to buffer your sensibilities, but someone who wants to delve into those RW traditions for their PCs, that twist is probably pure weaksauce.



I doubt it, and a game of D&D is not the place to delve into such things - at least in any game I am interested in playing.


----------



## InVinoVeritas (Aug 20, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> IME, I have yet to see a character concept that requires the character to be male or female. IMO, I honestly don't see how a player could need their charatcer to only be male or female that doesn't include elements that I don't care to have in a game I play for entertainment.




Does Jas's cartoony romance and associated targeting as a weakness for her crush's nemeses count as elements you don't care to have in the game? Would that have changed if I were a woman?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 20, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> But I do have to ask - what exactly would you be gaining by having your characters powers linked to a menstrual cycle as opposed to just a lunar cycle - or any other cycle for that matter, I'm really confused as to what experience your are trying to achieve. And how do you expect your DM to accommodate this aspect of your character - other than just noting the date and what bonuses/penalties you have - which could apply to any conditional power scheme.




A writer once told me it isn't the powers & virtues that most define interesting characters, its their flaws.  Look at the original 7 members of Justice League of America: four of them were virtually gods!  Superman without his weaknesses to kryptonite and magic, Wonder Woman without her weakness of being bound by a male (germane to this thread, as it happens), Green Lantern without his weakness to the color yellow and The Martian Manhunter without his weakness to fire would be virtually unstoppable.  Their stories would be boring tales of how they found the evildoers in ones and in groups and, by themselves, inexorably usher in Utopia.  The only ones who could challenge them would be those who were similarly gifted in power.

But their flaws give even Joe-Lex Luthor a chance to make something interesting happen.

So what I'm aiming for depends upon the exact mystic tradition I was modeling.

If I were modeling a PC's powers being linked to her cycle, I'd design her so that her powers waxed and waned accordingly- RPG system & campaign permitting, of course.*  Sometimes she'd be extremely powerful, sometimes she would be virtually powerless.  How she'd cope would make for interesting scenarios.  Foes who know of this flux could plan accordingly and strike when she was at her weakest- a classic storyline.

For characters with the "all or nothing" version of this, a moment of weakness means utter destruction.  Succumb to your baser instincts, the sway of alcohol, a love philtre, or an unspeakable crime and you're ejected from your chosen path forever.  This can make for a very extreme personalities- a very guarded person, private to the point of seeming unhuman; perhaps one who tempts fate- but regardless, always aware that everything they value could be lost in minutes.

For a regular mage, incarceration may be a temporary inconvenience.  For a mage like this, incarceration could lead to powerlessness...and death.  Therin lies extreme motivation to avoid capture, almost to the point of desperation.

This was part of what shaped the psyches of characters like Lythande (Thieves' World), Gillian (Bell, Book and Candle), Kahlan (Legend of the Seeker) and many other female mystics in literature and pop culture.  There is a dramatic tension inherent within the character itself.


* FWIW, there have been a rare few male characters with their powers fluctuating on the same lunar cycle- werewolves, Moon Knight and a few others- but they're the exception.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 20, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Nor have I, but I just don't even _care_.  I disallow all sorts of character concepts -- and so does every other decent GM out there -- and yet an infinite number of character concepts remain.



Each DM, however, draws the line at a different point.  I, for example, would allow:



> " ... a psychotic loner who has no real reason to stay with the group ..."
> 
> " ... a total pacifist, who literally would not hurt a fly (and hates when others do), in your World's Largest Dungeon campaign ... "



these, and let the players and the game determine if the concepts work out or not.  I also recall you saying (here and-or elsewhere) you don't allow players to play Evil characters; where I have no problem with Evil PCs at all. 

But I would not allow:


> "... an adult red dragon ..."
> 
> "... a super-speed character who is very difficult to hit, but dies when he gets hit ..."



these.



> By contrast, "I can't play a cross-gender PC?" has almost never been an issue in our local games.  I literally cannot remember the last time someone asked to play cross-gender in our local games, much less went into a depressed emo tailspin over it not being allowed.



Wow.  Your crew sure ain't the same as what we have up here. 

I could run the numbers and figure it out, but at a rough guess I'd say about 15-20% of all the characters our lot have ever played (several hundred in total) have been the opposite gender of their players.  It has never been an issue, but from the other direction. 

Lanefan

p.s. just ran the numbers on my own characters.  I've played 53 characters overall and co-played 2 more; the male-female ratio is 33-21-1 with the '1' being an otherwise-long-forgotten character where all I have listed is its very androgynous name.

EDIT: p.p.s. those numbers do not include NPCs played as DM, of which there have probably been thousands.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 20, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> So, if gender isn't an issue in the game I run and it makes it somewhat easier if people play same gendered characters - it shouldn't be a problem if that's all I allow. Some of the statements in this thread make it sound like that is a completely unreasonable position and possibly indicative of me having a "problem"




Your banning it shows that it clearly is an issue, at least for you.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 20, 2010)

GrimGent said:


> And one of those ways, of course, is to play a woman who doesn't emphasize her femininity in any way.




I tend to play female PCs who aren't conventionally very feminine in their behaviour (tough heavily armoured Fighter types, say), but they're still clearly female-brained, and they do behave differently than a man would.  I see it with my wife's male PCs too, her male characters are significantly different from her female ones because what goes on in their heads is different.

I guess if you really can't get the 'internal aspect' on a character, eg if you're male and can only play a female PC as a man in a woman's body or vice versa, then maybe you shouldn't play a PC of the opposite sex in a game with any significant in-character roleplay.  Personally I've rarely seen this as a problem with male players, and never with female players, though I've certainly read some female novelists who are otherwise good writers but write male characters like they're women in men's bodies (thinking eg C J Cherryh, Vanye in Chronicles of Morgaine).


----------



## S'mon (Aug 20, 2010)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> This was the point at issue.  The player had his character dallying with prostitutes and expected the DM to begin describing details of the "encounter" which otherwise had no bearing on anything happening in the game.  It had nothing to do with usurpation of roleplaying by _dictating_ PC reaction.  It had everything to do with the DM hitting the player upside the head with the cluehammer to declare to him that the situation did not warrant anything but _superficial_ acknowledgement of the expenditure of money and the characters actions/location during the night.





The best thing here for the DM to say, if the player won't, is Fade to Black.  There's lots of stuff in a game that should not be described (use of the latrine, say), and for most games sexual intercourse is certainly one of them.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 20, 2010)

*My guess was too low*

I'm statistician and record-keeper for our whole group of various campaigns, and I'm a little bored tonight, so I ran the numbers on how many of our various characters have not shared their player's gender.

Sample size is 668 player characters (which is everything I have records for as of about a month ago), most of which are from 1e games except about 10% are from 3e games (not that this makes any difference except that 3e's Warforged have no gender).

Give or take a very few, about 73% of the characters played have been the same gender as their player.  *About 25% have been the opposite gender*.  About 2.5% are not classified for one or more of a number of reasons: they have been both genders and-or self-identified as such, they are not gendered at all (e.g. Warforged), or I just don't know what gender the character was.

Actual numbers:

Same: 487 = 72.9%
Diff.: 165 = 24.7%
Other: 16 = 2.4%

I haven't done any accurate counting, but just glancing at the data here I'd say the ratio of male characters played by women is higher (maybe 40%) than that of female characters played by men (maybe 17%).

Lanefan


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 20, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Either do it right, put in a bit of effort, or forget about it.  Doing a half-assed at best job just annoys the crap out of me as a DM.



Most instances of "doing it badly" that I have witnessed have been when someone was really trying to make gender apparent as a player. Gender is one of the things that other players and the GM should be highlighting, not the player of the character. How does the orc shieftain treat the female fighter in a conversation? That is an interesting bit to RP. That is how to bring out gender. Bringing gender out through stereotypes as a player is often going to be bad. Bringing it out through NPC reactions is often very good. 

When a player puts down a gender on their character sheet, the player is stating that they want to deal with situations in game that have to do with that gender. It is an invitation for the GM to make life difficult/interesting for the character because of their gender. A male player who playes a female fighter is asking for some joan of arc type stories. It is the GM's job to make the decision of gender have meaning, not the player's job. When a player attempts to make it meaningful without the assistance of the GM, the element of gender becomes uncomfortable.

When I play female characters it is because I want to explore the world through the lens of women. I want the opportunity to explore the differences between men and women. Almost always, these differences are in how the world treats them, not in what the character does. There are not many areas as fertile for "role"-playing as exploring gender roles. These gender roles have much less to do with the inherent natures of the sexes as they have to do with societal expectations and interpersonal interactions. That is the heart of RP, and that is why I play games. In games where a character is just a pawn, gender has no meaning except as scenery. In my games, gender is a very interesting and fulfilling aspect of character/culture to explore.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 20, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> When a player puts down a gender on their character sheet, the player is stating that they want to deal with situations in game that have to do with that gender. It is an invitation for the GM to make life difficult/interesting for the character because of their gender. A male player who playes a female fighter is asking for some joan of arc type stories.




Um, no.  At least, definitely not necessarily.  When I play a female Fighter PC that doesn't mean I'm asking for life to be made difficult for my PC, far less to end up burned at the stake!   

If I want life made difficult for my PC (of either sex), I'll tell the GM.  If the GM intends to make life difficult for my PC, s/he really ought to tell me in advance so I can reconsider my choice.

This goes for same-gendered PCs too; if the GM's world is going to significantly discriminate against female PCs in-play, s/he should make that clear to female players too, and they can decide if they'd rather play a male PC.  

Or a really crappy GM could both discriminate against female PCs and ban cross-gender PCs.  Lots of fun for the female players there.


----------



## karolusb (Aug 20, 2010)

My default table rule is no.  And for a long time that has gone through without a hitch.  Why?  

1: The 6 foot tall redhead who played in 4 separate games/campaigns the 6 foot tall ultra butch redheaded megalesbian.  If that was the only guy who ever triggered that I would let it go, but he wasn't just the most over the top.  

2: It is easier to tell everyone no, and make 1 exception, than to tell everyone yes and make 1 exception.  Not everyone who makes a hideous caricature of a female character is a bona fide creep (the guy above was though), and singling out Tony as the guy who can't play a chick seems needlessly rude.  

3: Lastly there is a simplicity argument.  In a move a mini on the map and roll dice game it doesn't matter, and so simplicity is a better argument than “cause I wanna”.  Though neither is overwhelming compelling (and simplicity goes out the window if you speak Finnish it appears ;-).  

So while I have the default rule it isn't absolute.  It's more of a a requirement to tell me why, and if "I want to track my menstrual flow volumes as part of my magical tradition" is the reason, as much as I love mixing anthropology into my game design, I am gonna lean towards no.  A serious answer and a legitimate attempt will be honored, even if it isn't high Shakespeare.  

If a female player preferred it to avoid getting hit on I would call it ok, as it is my current group is 50% women, no girls (we're old), and that's not currently an issue.  

That said, in a more introspective game I certainly recommend occasionally stepping out of the comfort zone.  

I played a female elf years ago.  Certainly the last time I played a female, maybe the last time I played an elf.  And everyone in that game, myself included, remembers that character fondly.  She was a warrior, and on the battlefield likely couldn't be distinguished from a male of her race (no chainmail bikini here).  In an extended town adventure though she had the time to relax and to soften a bit, to wear nice dresses and get escorted to the opera.  I won't be trying to recreate that character anytime soon.  But I am glad I played it.  

In these games though you are both looking to see the world through different eyes, and hoping to do justice to an idea.  If your goal in playing a different gender doesn't include both of those I am inclined to agree with the folks who say you don't need to.  

As to the gender is just a box on a form so why is it different than race argument?  In many ways it isn’t.  I played an African for a couple years (former Rwandan child soldier actually).  I hope I did it justice.  I would hate to think it came across as blackface, if I played in multiple games where the white guys pretending to be black guys came off that way, I would institute the same rule.  Playing a caricature of a police officer is inherently less offensive, because no police officers ever got killed for trying to vote.  

What about when the race doesn’t exist?  Hopefully being a dwarf is more than second wind as a minor action, but unlike ethnicity and gender, if it is nothing more, at least there is a solid reason to choose it.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 20, 2010)

karolusb said:


> Playing a caricature of a police officer is inherently less offensive, because no police officers ever got killed for trying to vote.




Eh, where I come from a lot of police officers have been murdered for doing their job, for being a particular religion (and thus called 'traitors'), and so on.  I can certainly imagine cases where I'd find caricaturing them offensive.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 20, 2010)

S'mon said:


> The best thing here for the DM to say, if the player won't, is Fade to Black.  There's lots of stuff in a game that should not be described (use of the latrine, say), and for most games sexual intercourse is certainly one of them.



This.  If it doesn't advance the adventure and it leaves the rest of the party out in the cold, put it in a cut scene.  That goes double for sex and other things that would make the players uncomfortable.

And it depends on the players and group.  Some players, *shudder*  Some groups - between VoLK, Bourne Kingdom, and War of the Burning Sky at meetup I don't think we have a single cross-gender PC.  On the other hand a recent Feng Shui campaign I was in looked as if it would turn into Monstrous Regiment - all female PCs who were impersonating men (except mine which was male to provide a straight man for the humour in the situation).


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 20, 2010)

S'mon said:


> Um, no.  At least, definitely not necessarily.  When I play a female Fighter PC that doesn't mean I'm asking for life to be made difficult for my PC, far less to end up burned at the stake!



I didn't just say difficult. I said difficult/interesting. Maybe a little obtuse way of saying it, but meaning that the choice should be made meaningful in the game, not something that is just a box checked on a sheet. If the player goes out of their way to make their PC their opposite gender, then the choice should be a clue to the GM to play to that. Otherwise, they could have just stuck with their own gender and made things easier on everyone it seems.  



S'mon said:


> If I want life made difficult for my PC (of either sex), I'll tell the GM.  If the GM intends to make life difficult for my PC, s/he really ought to tell me in advance so I can reconsider my choice.
> This goes for same-gendered PCs too; if the GM's world is going to significantly discriminate against female PCs in-play, s/he should make that clear to female players too, and they can decide if they'd rather play a male PC.




The base assumption is that players and GM should be communicating. One of the methods to communicate to the GM is through character creation. Someone who creates a character who is a sneaky, dissguise expert rogue is telling the GM that they want to have opportunities to sneak and wear disguises in the game that will matter. In the same way, makeing a cross gendered character is a way to tell the GM that gender is important to your character concept, and that the GM should make gender important to the fiction of their game. Otherwise the choice of gender is meaningless.  



S'mon said:


> Or a really crappy GM could both discriminate against female PCs and ban cross-gender PCs.  Lots of fun for the female players there.




That is just a crappy GM. For many reasons. He takes away the player's right to choose their gender, then enforces unjust policies that are based on gender. I do not play with people like that. The people who do actually play with people like that deserve the GM that they get. The unfortunate consequence will be immature and unsophisticated games with no female players. Probably in their parent's basement. With cheetos and mountain dew. And zits. Lots of zits.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 20, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> Most instances of "doing it badly" that I have witnessed have been when someone was really trying to make gender apparent as a player. Gender is one of the things that other players and the GM should be highlighting, not the player of the character. How does the orc shieftain treat the female fighter in a conversation? That is an interesting bit to RP. That is how to bring out gender. Bringing gender out through stereotypes as a player is often going to be bad. Bringing it out through NPC reactions is often very good.
> 
> When a player puts down a gender on their character sheet, the player is stating that they want to deal with situations in game that have to do with that gender. It is an invitation for the GM to make life difficult/interesting for the character because of their gender. A male player who playes a female fighter is asking for some joan of arc type stories. It is the GM's job to make the decision of gender have meaning, not the player's job. When a player attempts to make it meaningful without the assistance of the GM, the element of gender becomes uncomfortable.
> 
> When I play female characters it is because I want to explore the world through the lens of women. I want the opportunity to explore the differences between men and women. Almost always, these differences are in how the world treats them, not in what the character does. There are not many areas as fertile for "role"-playing as exploring gender roles. These gender roles have much less to do with the inherent natures of the sexes as they have to do with societal expectations and interpersonal interactions. That is the heart of RP, and that is why I play games. In games where a character is just a pawn, gender has no meaning except as scenery. In my games, gender is a very interesting and fulfilling aspect of character/culture to explore.




This is a good argument, and often the case, but I believe that it's not always. Sometimes a character's gender is based on an inspirational source. For example, consider a female adventurous archaeologist. The player may have chosen to do a riff on Indiana Jones, but be interested in the situations that being a female version in particular would bring about. But on the other hand, the player may have chosen to do a riff on Lara Croft, just because the character thinks Lara Croft is an interestingly playable character model in an RPG.  

One of the reasons I'm personally fine with cross-gender roleplay is that I think it allows clearer inspiration: you can base a character off Indiana Jones, or "female Indiana Jones," or Lara Croft, or "male Lara Croft," and all four of those are going to be different starting points. Players aren't stuck drawing solely from the pool of inspirational characters that are their own gender, or being encouraged to gender-swap them.

(And now I am wondering what a character based on the concept of "female Jack Burton" would be like. The picture in my head is enormously likable.)


----------



## Abraxas (Aug 20, 2010)

S'mon said:


> Your banning it shows that it clearly is an issue, at least for you.



In exactly the same way it is an issue when a DM bans monks, dragonborn, evil PCs, etc, etc, etc... but no one seems to give those DMs grief


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 20, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> In exactly the same way it is an issue when a DM bans monks, dragonborn, evil PCs, etc, etc, etc... but no one seems to give those DMs grief



They do. Moreso, I think. Players generally have stronger preferences regarding race or class than gender. You know, the guy that always plays an elf or a ninja, or loves to play something weird.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 20, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> In exactly the same way it is an issue when a DM bans monks, dragonborn, evil PCs, etc, etc, etc... but no one seems to give those DMs grief




I do.

It's kind of like arguing a call with the ump in baseball- it won't change things NOW, but you may get things to go your way later.

So while I might not get to play THIS disallowed aspect of a PC, the next time, I may get to play a different one the way I see fit later.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Aug 20, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> In exactly the same way it is an issue when a DM bans monks, dragonborn, evil PCs, etc, etc, etc... but no one seems to give those DMs grief



Yes, they do. I remember, way back in the days of 3e before 3.5, someone said they didn't allow Prestige Classes. That person was dog piled on fairly quickly.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> It's kind of like arguing a call with the ump in baseball- it won't change things NOW, but you may get things to go your way later.
> 
> So while I might not get to play THIS disallowed aspect of a PC, the next time, I may get to play a different one the way I see fit later.



I think you've just described 90% of the arguments I have with my players.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 20, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> /snip
> 
> IME, I have yet to see a character concept that requires the character to be male or female. IMO, I honestly don't see how a player could need their charatcer to only be male or female that doesn't include elements that I don't care to have in a game I play for entertainment.
> 
> YMMV, probably does, and that's fine and dandy




Just going back to this one.

Would Ellen Ripley be exactly the same character if it was Alan Ripley?

Would the story remain the same if it was Steven Connor, father of John Connor, who was saved by a female soldier from the future, and said soldier gave birth to John but was killed by a Terminator?

Or, let's take a series where the character's gender was changed - Battlestar Gallactica.  Starbuck in the original series was this kinda smarmy lothario style character.  Kara "Starbuck" Thrace was based on the same concept, but was certainly female.

Gender can play an enormous role in character.  Now, sure, you can play a female character that is constantly trying to submerge her feminine characteristics, but, that should come out in play.  

And, yes, Nameless1 points out, it should be helped along by other players.  But, the ball is squarely in the player's court first.  That player has to bring it up in play because, if that player doesn't, no one else is going to, other than maybe the DM.  And, really, why should the DM?  The player is obviously not interested in making gender an issue, since the player never brings it up.

While I certainly like to roleplay with my players, I generally don't want to browbeat them into it.



GrimGent said:


> And one of those ways, of course, is to play a woman who doesn't emphasize her femininity in any way. Asexuality is a viable option for character concepts, naturally enough. In these discussions about players failing to portray the opposite sex "accurately", it seems all too easily to slip into sweeping generalizations on how men or women _should_ act, according to some set of conventions: "All men behave like _this_" or "No woman would do _that_", when common sense tells that somewhere in the wide world, right at this very moment, people are proving that false.
> 
> The old advice still holds true: play a complete person, not some stereotype of a sex or a gender, and it will work out all right.




But, again, it's a matter of degree.  Gender, unless there is some species reason why not, is pretty readily apparent.  There's a significant difference between playing against gender expectations and completely ignoring them entirely.

Even if your character is trying to be asexual, that most certainly SHOULD be brought up in play.  That's something interesting about the character.  That's a pretty strong trait.  So, let's see it at the table.

That's all I'm asking for.  If you want your character to have a specific trait, then play it.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 20, 2010)

Hussar said:


> That's all I'm asking for.  If you want your character to have a specific trait, then play it.




How?

Specific examples please.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Aug 20, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> In exactly the same way it is an issue when a DM bans monks, dragonborn, evil PCs, etc, etc, etc... but no one seems to give those DMs grief



First off, a lot of players DO give DMs grief for banning their pet race or class.

But there are a lot of rationales for banning things that might have nothing to do with . If I ban monks or dragonborn in my campaign, it's because they don't fit thematically, not because I don't want to deal with issues of people not "correctly" playing monks or dragonborn.

I have always banned evil PCs in my campaigns, precisely because I don't want to deal with those issues among players.  Conversely, I don't ban cross-gender PCs because I don't mind dealing with those issues (or more accurately, it's never been an issue in my games).  

The former cases have to do with the campaign world. The latter have to do with the comfort levels of me and my players.  They are not the same.


----------



## Kingreaper (Aug 20, 2010)

Hussar said:


> And, yes, Nameless1 points out, it should be helped along by other players.  But, the ball is squarely in the player's court first.  That player has to bring it up in play because, if that player doesn't, no one else is going to, other than maybe the DM.  And, really, why should the DM?  The player is obviously not interested in making gender an issue, since the player never brings it up.



How do you bring it up?

Going "Oh, and I'm female by the way" every ten minutes? That sounds bloody irritating, and depending how it's done (ie. with comments like "and I adjust my bra") really rather creepy.

Behaving feminine? (two of the three most feminine character's I've seen played have been male)




> But, again, it's a matter of degree.  Gender, unless there is some species reason why not, is pretty readily apparent.  There's a significant difference between playing against gender expectations and completely ignoring them entirely.



Hair colour is also readily apparent. Which is why you generally mention it once or twice, then forget about it unless it comes up.

As long as the GM can remember; it'll come up when an NPC cares. Until then, not-so-much.



> Even if your character is trying to be asexual, that most certainly SHOULD be brought up in play.  That's something interesting about the character.  That's a pretty strong trait.  So, let's see it at the table.




How is being *Asexual* supposed to be brought up in play?
In order for it to be at all relevant, someone (presumably an NPC) has to approach the character, with sex in mind.
Then the character turns them down.
As would a chaste character, a character attracted to the other gender, a character who didn't like brunettes/redheads/whatever.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Aug 20, 2010)

Hussar said:


> And, yes, Nameless1 points out, it should be helped along by other players.  But, the ball is squarely in the player's court first.  That player has to bring it up in play because, if that player doesn't, no one else is going to, other than maybe the DM.  And, really, why should the DM?  The player is obviously not interested in making gender an issue, since the player never brings it up.
> 
> While I certainly like to roleplay with my players, I generally don't want to browbeat them into it.



Interesting.  To me part of the DM's function is to do exactly this sort of thing, to attempt to draw out the defining rp bits on the char sheet, precisely in order to help a shy or bewildered or new player along.  It doesn't seem like browbeating to bring up a PC's gender once or twice early on in the campaign.  If they run with it, great; if not, drop it.  At worst, the player might realize they don't really want to play across genders (or races, or whatever) and surreptitiously uncheck the "F" box on their char sheet.

IME a lot of players-- especially new ones or shy ones-- simply won't make the first stab at something like gender, so it's up to the DM to bring it up if it's a significant factor in the game world.  Roleplaying, after all, is really about _inter_action, not action.

But, of course, D&D's also just a game, and no place for anyone to feel pressured into doing something they don't want to do, DM or player.  So the topic really boils down to a question of communication between the all the people at the table.  Yet again.  Go figure.


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 20, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> MWhen a player puts down a gender on their character sheet, the player is stating that they want to deal with situations in game that have to do with that gender. It is an invitation for the GM to make life difficult/interesting for the character because of their gender. A male player who playes a female fighter is asking for some joan of arc type stories. It is the GM's job to make the decision of gender have meaning, not the player's job. When a player attempts to make it meaningful without the assistance of the GM, the element of gender becomes uncomfortable.




Except that all that demonstrates is that the GM is sexist, or an ass.  There is no need to be "historically accurate" in any non-history based games.  There is no need to have all the villagers hate your character because they're a woman, or have the local priest want to crucify her because she's not in her "womanly role".  Making "life difficult" for the player is just rude.  

Certainly there are some things that the player should encounter that are different, but not to the extreme that "you're so unique that everyone hates you and you have to die."

example: In one of my friends game(a game I am fortunate to not be party to), a female friend of mine played a female character, except, the DM, being sexist and feeling that a fantasy world based off historically male-dominated "dark ages" should be oppressive towards women, which culminated at one point in the GM having some NPC attempt to rape my friend's character.

It should be needless to say she stopped playing that game, and actually stopped being friends with the GM.

THAT is the exact kind of path you put yourself on when, as a GM, you decide that because the PC is a woman, life needs to be harder for them.  Sure, maybe it's a rude joke at first, but that doesn't really rile the player.  Then it escalates, now it's public humiliation, and then suddenly, it's one night she's separated from the group and cornered by a dozen young men.


If you're going to "have it out" for players who do something outside your little box, make it clear, or ban it right from the start and simply deny the player the ability to join in until they meet your requirements.  But going down the "life should be harder for women, and I don't like men who play female characters" ends up with situations like above.  And suddenly you're not just a GM who likes things his way.  You're a GM who just had a player's character get raped, and that kind of thing WILL stick with you.

I don't mean to sound overly harsh, but I keep seeing the shadow of "I am going to make playing difficult for male players who play female PCs" and I want to get it right out there that a mild difficulty escalates quickly and often gets out of control.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 20, 2010)

shidaku said:


> Except that all that demonstrates is that the GM is sexist, or an ass.  There is no need to be "historically accurate" in any non-history based games.




Need?  Well, as usual, there's nothing ever _needed_ in gaming, including the gaming itself.  So that's a strawman right there.

There can be a desire to use any kind of society one can think up - including misogynistic ones, just as there's reason to use slavery or racism or class struggle or any other normal human problem.

The GM is a bit of a jerk if every single NPC acts the same way, and gives the same PC the same kind of hard time.  But there's nothing sexist or wrong with using plot elements the player is inviting you to use.  If you are playing a character of unknown parentage, your father may turn up in game.  If you're choosing to play a specific gender, you can expect it to come up in game, too.


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 20, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Need?  Well, as usual, there's nothing ever _needed_ in gaming, including the gaming itself.  So that's a strawman right there.
> 
> There can be a desire to use any kind of society one can think up - including misogynistic ones, just as there's reason to use slavery or racism or class struggle or any other normal human problem.
> 
> The GM is a bit of a jerk if every single NPC acts the same way, and gives the same PC the same kind of hard time.  But there's nothing sexist or wrong with using plot elements the player is inviting you to use.  If you are playing a character of unknown parentage, your father may turn up in game.  If you're choosing to play a specific gender, you can expect it to come up in game, too.




And all of those choices and events should come from a desire to improve the game, not, as I've been repetitiously seeing throughout this thread, a desire to punish players for going outside the DM's "comfort box".


----------



## Abraxas (Aug 20, 2010)

the_orc_within said:


> First off, a lot of players DO give DMs grief for banning their pet race or class.



Not on this board - as far as I have seen.



the_orc_within said:


> The former cases have to do with the campaign world. The latter have to do with the comfort levels of me and my players.  They are not the same.



They are the same in that banning them doesn't mean you have a personality disorder - which has been suggested and implied in this thread.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 20, 2010)

shidaku said:


> And all of those choices and events should come from a desire to improve the game, not, as I've been repetitiously seeing throughout this thread, a desire to punish players for going outside the DM's "comfort box".




You seem to be boxing with shadows.

Nameless1, above, wasn't talking about punishment, or the GM's comfort, but about _giving player what they're requesting_, specifically with the statement that the GM and player are supposed to be communicating.

If that makes the GM a sexist jerk... we have a fundamental lack of shared understanding.


----------



## Abraxas (Aug 20, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I do.
> 
> It's kind of like arguing a call with the ump in baseball- it won't change things NOW, but you may get things to go your way later.
> 
> So while I might not get to play THIS disallowed aspect of a PC, the next time, I may get to play a different one the way I see fit later.



I must have better players - the only thing they give me grief over is stat generation method (roll vs point buy vs array).

I also have to say - not allowing cross gender PCs is due to 2 players (one male and one female) and other than those two the idea of playing cross gender had never been an issue in games I DM. In 32 years of D&D I have gamed with people who played cross gender PCs exactly 5 times.

In one of my most recent campaigns, I dropped the ban and allowed someone to run a cross gender PC and guess what - I regretted it and that campaign is now over. And this was someone who didn't give me any problems until that particular PC.

I don't have any of the personality or mental disorders being suggested because of my gaming preferences. The preference just makes gaming easier and more fun for me - and apparently the people I game with cause we've been playing for the last 20 years together.


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 20, 2010)

Umbran said:


> You seem to be boxing with shadows.
> 
> Nameless1, above, wasn't talking about punishment, or the GM's comfort, but about _giving player what they're requesting_, specifically with the statement that the GM and player are supposed to be communicating.
> 
> If that makes the GM a sexist jerk... we have a fundamental lack of shared understanding.




I very well might be, but my RP Senes have been tingling suggesting that some GMs who disapprove of males playing females, either openly or on the side, will take to making life(in game) difficult for players who play a PC of which they personally don't approve, even if the player plays it very well.


----------



## JustKim (Aug 20, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> How do you bring it up?
> 
> Going "Oh, and I'm female by the way" every ten minutes? That sounds bloody irritating, and depending how it's done (ie. with comments like "and I adjust my bra") really rather creepy.
> 
> Behaving feminine? (two of the three most feminine character's I've seen played have been male)



I'm a little concerned that some folks don't seem to really understand what makes male and female characters different. One justification for "needing" to play a female character is shamanism and traditions related to the menstrual cycle. Okay- but what about wanting to roleplay the clearly different perspective of a female character, the different problems and relationships that she has, the different imperatives and desires, the varied and nuanced differences that will make her a completely different character than her male counterpart? Is that not justifiable, or are we trying not to acknowledge that men and women are different?

How do you remind the other people at the table that your character is a woman? Through behavior, with language, in so many little ways that books have been filled with them. Being feminine is so nebulous a concept that, as evidenced by the question, we tend to apply it to the big, obvious, and mostly affected differences between women and men. You don't need to be a pretty princess or everybody's mother to be a believable female character any more than you need to be Conan or Aragorn to be a believable male character.

Just think about some of the differences you've observed, the little things, and incorporate them subtly into your character. If you can't think of any differences, I think it would serve you well both in roleplaying and in the real world to pay closer attention.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 20, 2010)

shidaku said:


> THAT is the exact kind of path you put yourself on when, as a GM, you decide that because the PC is a woman, life needs to be harder for them.  Sure, maybe it's a rude joke at first, but that doesn't really rile the player.  Then it escalates, now it's public humiliation, and then suddenly, it's one night she's separated from the group and cornered by a dozen young men.




This might be one reason why unless I know the DM well, I prefer to play female PCs with a female DM: I can be pretty sure she's not going to rape* my PC.  Of course a good male DM wouldn't do that either, but it's easier to be sure with a female DM.

*Or otherwise disempower.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 20, 2010)

JustKim said:


> How do you remind the other people at the table that your character is a woman? Through behavior, with language, in so many little ways that books have been filled with them. Being feminine is so nebulous a concept that, as evidenced by the question, we tend to apply it to the big, obvious, and mostly affected differences between women and men. You don't need to be a pretty princess or everybody's mother to be a believable female character any more than you need to be Conan or Aragorn to be a believable male character.
> 
> Just think about some of the differences you've observed, the little things, and incorporate them subtly into your character. If you can't think of any differences, I think it would serve you well both in roleplaying and in the real world to pay closer attention.




I am an inattentive idiot, so enlighten me. What are some of these little, subtle differences? Pick a couple and tell us what they are and how one would portray them. I'm seeing a lot of vague claims that people who play cross-gender should RP their gender somehow, and yet none of the people making these claims ever produces a specific example of what this might entail... probably because they know that as soon as they do, someone will pipe up and say, "I know some women (or men) who are _nothing like that_."

And you know what? That someone will be right, because the variation within each sex is vastly greater than the differences between sexes, and those differences are largely a product of culture anyway, and PCs are exceptional even within their imaginary cultures. Unless you're talking pure biology--and that's a subject that is generally glossed over at the gaming table--there just _are_ no traits that can be definitively classed as "masculine" or "feminine," except in the context of culture and its expectations.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Aug 20, 2010)

Just to make sure I'm enjoying this properly ...

Some people are arguing, "Whether the PC is a man or a woman _makes no difference_, so of course DMs must allow cross-gender PCs!"

And other people are arguing, "Whether the PC is male or female _is so important in many ways_, so of course DMs must allow cross-gender PCs!"

Right?  And now the first group is calling out the second group?  Cool.

Carry on.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 20, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> I am an inattentive idiot, so enlighten me. What are some of these little, subtle differences? Pick a couple and tell us what they are and how one would portray them. I'm seeing a lot of vague claims that people who play cross-gender should RP their gender somehow, and yet none of the people making these claims ever produces a specific example of what this might entail... probably because they know that as soon as they do, someone will pipe up and say, "I know some women (or men) who are _nothing like that_."
> 
> And you know what? That someone will be right, because the variation within each sex is vastly greater than the differences between sexes, and those differences are largely a product of culture anyway, and PCs are exceptional even within their imaginary cultures. Unless you're talking pure biology--and that's a subject that is generally glossed over at the gaming table--there just _are_ no traits that can be definitively classed as "masculine" or "feminine," except in the context of culture and its expectations.




You say that, and yet it is not true.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 21, 2010)

S'mon said:


> You say that, and yet it is not true.




Still no examples.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 21, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Just to make sure I'm enjoying this properly ...
> 
> Some people are arguing, "Whether the PC is a man or a woman _makes no difference_, so of course DMs must allow cross-gender PCs!"
> 
> ...




Yeah, pretty much. I'm calling out everybody who says that male and female characters need to be played in different ways. A pox on both your houses. 

The people who are saying, "I don't allow cross-gender because I've had bad experiences with lesbian stripper ninjas and it's easier just to have a blanket ban?" Okay, that's a pretty good reason. I haven't had enough bad experiences to take me to that point, but I can see how other people might.

People who say, "It just creeps me out?" Well, I don't think that's as good a reason, obviously, but at least it's straightforward. You feel how you feel. Can't argue with that.

But saying that male and female characters are somehow fundamentally _different_ and must be played differently... yeah, I just don't buy that argument, and I don't really care which side it's being deployed on. I'm tired of seeing it. I want somebody who's making it to put their* money where their mouth is and provide some specifics.

(I suppose I should add: Wanting to play a character who sees the world from a different perspective is cool, but you've got to remember that that perspective is a cultural construct. In the absence of cultural cues provided by the setting--which typically means the DM--it just doesn't mean anything. You can't play a character dealing with the issues caused by patriarchy in a world where there is no patriarchy. So until the DM gives you some patriarchy, or matriarchy, or _something_, there's nothing to base that perspective on. In a modern-day or historical setting, it's different.)

[size=-2]*Hey, look, singular "they!"[/size]


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 21, 2010)

<merged into previous>


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Aug 21, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> But saying that male and female characters are somehow fundamentally _different_ and must be played differently... yeah, I just don't buy that argument, and I don't really care which side it's being deployed on.



Do you understand why I'm amused, though?

The way I see it, there are two possibilities: (1) The male player accentuates the female gender of his PC, in whatever subtle or not-so-subtle way, so that people know he's playing a female.  (2) The male player plays no difference in the PC.

In the case of (1), IME it has never failed to creep me out or offend me.  In the case of (2), I see no good reason for the PC to be cross-gender.

To watch two groups of people essentially present good reasons to not allow cross-gender PCs -- to see both groups actually _argue_ between themselves about it, while ostensibly both arguing for it -- well, it makes me laugh.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 21, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Do you understand why I'm amused, though?
> 
> The way I see it, there are two possibilities: (1) The male player accentuates the female gender of his PC, in whatever subtle or not-so-subtle way, so that people know he's playing a female.  (2) The male player plays no difference in the PC.
> 
> ...




Oh yes. I see your amusement. In your place I'd probably feel the same. 

Like I said, (1) looks like a perfectly legitimate argument to me. My response to (2) would be that, in the absence of people being offensive/creepy, there is no more and no less reason to forbid cross-gender PCs than there is to forbid red-haired ones.

I've never claimed there was some vast overriding reason why cross-gender RPing _must_ be allowed. I just want to demolish what I consider fallacious arguments for why it should be forbidden. Even when, at this moment, those arguments are being used the other way.


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 21, 2010)

S'mon said:


> This might be one reason why unless I know the DM well, I prefer to play female PCs with a female DM: I can be pretty sure she's not going to rape* my PC.  Of course a good male DM wouldn't do that either, but it's easier to be sure with a female DM.
> 
> *Or otherwise disempower.




That's a good point, but seeing as this a heavily male-dominated past-time, in a lot of places that simply isn't possible.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 21, 2010)

shidaku said:


> I very well might be, but my RP Senes have been tingling suggesting that some GMs who disapprove of males playing females, either openly or on the side, will take to making life(in game) difficult for players who play a PC of which they personally don't approve, even if the player plays it very well.




Right.  So, you're assuming it, and speaking based upon that, rather than what people actually say, even if it is actively against what they say.  Gotcha.

Here's a hint from a moderator (which is important enough that it is even mentioned in EN World's Rules) - don't attribute motives or thought processes to people that they don't show explicitly.  Doing so is kind of rude, and tends to cheese people off, and cause arguments.  

End of tangent.  We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.


----------



## JustKim (Aug 21, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> I am an inattentive idiot, so enlighten me. What are some of these little, subtle differences? Pick a couple and tell us what they are and how one would portray them. I'm seeing a lot of vague claims that people who play cross-gender should RP their gender somehow, and yet none of the people making these claims ever produces a specific example of what this might entail... probably because they know that as soon as they do, someone will pipe up and say, "I know some women (or men) who are _nothing like that_."



I'm sorry if I offended, it was really never my intention to call anybody stupid. You're asking me for broad generalizations, but that was really not what I was talking about either. I was talking about differences on an individual level. That's why it's impossible to make a list of traits that define a female character- impossible and also crass.

I think we might have different ideas of the role of biology in our lives, but, you are absolutely right that gender differences manifest culturally. That's not to say they wouldn't exist without culture. Culture and expectations shape the way we think and behave, so there is nothing wrong with using cultural cues to shape a character. There's nothing disingenuous about it either, because it's how human beings shape their own identities. So if you say "I can't think of any gender differences that don't come down to culture," I wouldn't say you're inattentive at all, I would say you're looking too hard.

When I make characters, I take cues from real people around me. If these are cultural cues, it makes no difference. I look at my male friends and I see competition under a veneer of civility, I see conflicts that get resolved instead of simmering, I see easy bonds of friendship but private worlds that are never discussed. When I work outdoors, I see men returning to work before women, taking greater risks, and offering help instead of requesting it. When I work in the office, I see women preparing, instructing, and laying the tedious footwork that must always be done. In a workplace populated by women I see seething tensions and secret alliances, in any environment.

I see women who pass by donation boxes but cringe at the idea of a stray cat suffering, men who cannot help but pretend to be experts at everything, and I see little cues that make a character. The things that make a person interesting. They don't have to be true for everyone, they just have to evoke the right kind of person.


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 21, 2010)

shidaku said:


> *sinp*
> Certainly there are some things that the player should encounter that are different, but not to the extreme that "you're so unique that everyone hates you and you have to die."
> 
> *snip* Text about raping PCs *snip*
> ...




This is both the most gross mischaracterization of a post I have read in a while as well as a perfect example of a slippery slope falacy. I am not even sure that I will be able to respond in a way that will be understood.

My point is that I think that choices should be meaningful, and that when you make a choice about gender, especially if it is cross gender, then the GM should do things to make that choice meaningful. Gang raping a PC is not a good way to make their choice meaningful. How you got that from my post is a complete mystery to me.

I agree with Dausuul in that the characteristics of "female" and "male" are extremely nebulous, and as his sig states, people often act "out of character." I also think that there are interesting areas of biology, societal values, and interpersonal relationships that are fun to play out at the table. There are things that one may portray through your character's actions that will go unnoticed as being motivated by gender. Some may be obviously gender related.

I have a philosophy about gaming that I did not invent myself, but I definitely try to play by it. Players are often not able to portray the "character" of their character without help. Character is defined by how you conduct yourself in various circumstances, as well as how others react to you. So it is everyone's responsibility to bring out each other's characters, through creation of situations that will highlight features of your character, as well as portray the reactions of the rest of the world to your character's actions. This play style is often called "I will make you cool." 

It goes like this. A player can state that their character is beautiful. It usually falls flat. Sure, they are beautiful. A GM can make the NPCs around the character behave as if the character is beautiful, maybe fawning, maybe jealous, maybe just extra polite. Then the character comes alive. A player can state that their character is strong. Sure, they are strong. A GM can make enemies fly away at the strikes of the character, and doors may explode into splinters at a blow from their hammer. The caracter has come alive. It is the interface of world and character that gives meaning to the choices made by players, and it is where the rubber meets the road for real role-playing.

For issues like gender, a player can state that their character is female. And it sounds like many people just forget about it after that. But a good group introduces situations that make the choice of gender matter. Like maybe the female warrior is constantly underestimated, until she kicks some major butt. Or maybe a female thief has an easier time distracting a mark because she is beautiful and winks at him. Or maybe an orc chieftain ignores the female leader of a party and speaks to the hulking but ignorant male barbarian, because maybe the orc is a mysogynist. Or maybe there are things that a male character just has no access to. Like maybe the private lives of the Women's Council in the village, the one that actually runs the show because they can "hold out" on the men who run the Village Council. Or maybe the Healing Women hold female characters to a higher standard "because a woman should just know better," but to those who can meet the standards, extra good stuff comes to them.

At any rate, gender is a choice that I feel is definitely a worthwhile area to role play to, and when your choices are made meaningful in a mature way, gender can be quite rewarding to roleplay. To bring literature into it, the Wheel of Time was made substantially better, and was an interesting example of thoughtful fantasy literature, by the introduction and exploration of gender and the use of female characters as more than the love interest. Sure, there was a lot of love interest stuff in WoT, but there were examples of strong women, as well as meaningful aspects of the story that were driven by the genders of the characters.

And like anything, in the end it is the maturity and communication between players that makes good RP possible, not the content of the RP itself.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 21, 2010)

JustKim said:


> I'm sorry if I offended, it was really never my intention to call anybody stupid.




Nah, I wasn't taking that as being called stupid. I was just being sarcastic and confrontational, probably more so than was warranted--and aimed as much at previous posters as at you. My apologies.



JustKim said:


> You're asking me for broad generalizations, but that was really not what I was talking about either. I was talking about differences on an individual level. That's why it's impossible to make a list of traits that define a female character- impossible and also crass.
> 
> I think we might have different ideas of the role of biology in our lives, but, you are absolutely right that gender differences manifest culturally. That's not to say they wouldn't exist without culture. Culture and expectations shape the way we think and behave, so there is nothing wrong with using cultural cues to shape a character. There's nothing disingenuous about it either, because it's how human beings shape their own identities. So if you say "I can't think of any gender differences that don't come down to culture," I wouldn't say you're inattentive at all, I would say you're looking too hard.
> 
> ...




Fair enough, and I appreciate your being willing to get into specifics.

As I said a couple posts ago, though--questions of anatomy aside, it _is_ all cultural, and in a D&D setting, there's really not enough of a culture to draw on unless the DM has gone to extraordinary lengths to depict one. The typical D&D world is a mishmash where gender norms regard female adventurers and warriors and leaders as perfectly unremarkable, yet every tavern is stocked with serving wenches in the best patriarchal tradition. It seldom stands up to close investigation.

So I don't think you can really say you're taking on a certain perspective in a world where that perspective has no basis. It's like playing a dark-skinned person in a world where there's no legacy of the slave trade or colonialism.

In a game set in the real world, or a world heavily grounded in real-world history, I would agree with you that exploring someone else's perspective is both a challenge and an interesting possibility. But in D&D? I just don't think it's there, unless your DM has gone to some lengths to put it there--in which case the cues for roleplaying originate with the DM, not the player.

(Edited to add: I don't know whether to be amused or dismayed that you and I are playing out such a perfect demonstration of what you're talking about...)


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 21, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> In a game set in the real world, or a world heavily grounded in real-world history, I would agree with you that exploring someone else's perspective is both a challenge and an interesting possibility. But in D&D? I just don't think it's there, unless your DM has gone to some lengths to put it there--in which case the cues for roleplaying originate with the DM, not the player.




Just to be contrarian, could you address the Drow?

Yes, the DM has to play to it. I hear over and over again where DMs say that they pay attention to the things that interest players, and I hear over and over again about the amazing and detailed worlds that DMs have created, but any DM that values both what the players' values and creates detailed worlds should have the effects of gender on society and the characters if they have a player that plays cross gendered PCs. That is what they are interested in, and so it should be addressed some in the world.


----------



## Subtlepanic (Aug 21, 2010)

Often I've found it difficult to read someone's gender over a forum or MMO. When you just break it down to words and actions, many people don't wear their gender on their sleeves in real life, so why should characters have to act like they do so in RP?


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 21, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> Just to be contrarian, could you address the Drow?




Well, like I said, the typical D&D world is an incoherent mishmash--some good old-fashioned patriarchy here, some utopian egalitarianism there. And, down in the Underdark, you've got a patriarch's nightmare vision of matriarchy gone mad. 

I will concede that the drow have a well-defined gender structure. In fact, you could take the position that playing _your own gender_ as a drow is like adopting a cross-gender perspective... the way drow females treat males is pretty close to a mirror image of what you'd see in a strongly patriarchal Earth society.


----------



## Rel (Aug 21, 2010)

Subtlepanic said:


> Often I've found it difficult to read someone's gender over a forum or MMO. When you just break it down to words and actions, many people don't wear their gender on their sleeves in real life, so why should characters have to act like they do so in RP?




I'm a dude.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 21, 2010)

Rel said:


> I'm a dude.



Depending on where you live that could mean anything. I have a friend from L.A. who calls everyone dude. And she's a she. =)


----------



## InVinoVeritas (Aug 21, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Still no examples.




See Jas above.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 21, 2010)

InVinoVeritas said:


> See Jas above.




Link? This thread is seventeen pages long, I don't feel like digging back through all of it. Or you could, y'know, quote the relevant material.


----------



## JustKim (Aug 21, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> In a game set in the real world, or a world heavily grounded in real-world history, I would agree with you that exploring someone else's perspective is both a challenge and an interesting possibility. But in D&D? I just don't think it's there, unless your DM has gone to some lengths to put it there--in which case the cues for roleplaying originate with the DM, not the player.



I think we readily identify recognizable cues from our own experiences and expectations at the gaming table, and that naturally takes precedent over analyzing what makes sense in the D&D world. The game is populated by our preconceptions until someone specifically says otherwise, right? It's necessary for a shared experience with the rest of the people at your table. I think the world is strengthened, not thrown into question, by building off those preconceptions.


----------



## radmod (Aug 21, 2010)

Hmm, I 'm wondering. I don't recall in these seventeen or so pages anyone mentioning GMs/DMs.
I see a lot of discussion about players playing opposite sexes, about how bad they can be, and/or about how freaky it seems.
Yet, GMs do it all the time. I certainly do. Does anyone find that freaky? Or are GMs, being the superior beings we are, that much better at it?


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Aug 21, 2010)

radmod said:


> Or are GMs, being the superior beings we are, that much better at it?



I, personally, am fairly terrible at it.

But the huge -- and frankly, I would have thought obvious -- difference is that NPCs rarely have, are expected to have, or realistically can have the depth of characterization a player should be bringing to a PC.

Frankly, almost all -- and I mean _almost all_ -- of a DM's NPCs, as presented to the players, are relatively sketchy, two-dimensional constructs.  So it doesn't make all that much difference that when I'm portraying Lady Elaydren in my Eberron campaign that it's a little iffy, because all of my NPCs -- and IME all NPCs in general -- are a little iffy.  That my female NPCs are a smidge more so?  Enh, it's not a game breaker.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 21, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> How?
> 
> Specific examples please.




How to present gender?  Seriously?  THIS is your question?  Wow, I'm just really rather stunned as to think how to answer this.

Let's see - something as simple as requesting a separate room at the inn from the rest of the male party.  How's that for specific?

Naming conventions.  "I'm not Lord Rowena, I'm Lady Rowena."

Clothing.

I'm sure there are many, many other very obvious ways you can delineate your gender at the table that doesn't devolve down to stating that you're a woman every ten minutes.  Then again, I've seen role playing of that calliber from more than a few "experienced" gamers, so, maybe that's not so far out there.



Dausuul said:


> /snip
> 
> But saying that male and female characters are somehow fundamentally _different_ and *must *be played differently... yeah, I just don't buy that argument, and I don't really care which side it's being deployed on. I'm tired of seeing it. I want somebody who's making it to put their* money where their mouth is and provide some specifics.
> /snip[/size]




Bold mine.

Not must.  Should.  There is a difference.  You certainly don't have to delineate the character's gender, any more than you have to do any other role play at the table.

But a well played character will do this, simply through the process of good role playing.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 21, 2010)

JustKim said:


> I'm a little concerned that some folks don't seem to really understand what makes male and female characters different.




Ok, so tell us. What makes them different? I've been wondering, because after several years of studying psychology and dabbling in sociology, I'm not sure. Maybe you could help me out.



> Is that not justifiable, or are we trying not to acknowledge that men and women are different?




Of course men and women are different. It is also likely that men, on average, differ from women, but that's much more difficult to explicate than the numerous and obvious differences that distinguish one individual from another.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 21, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Do you understand why I'm amused, though?
> 
> The way I see it, there are two possibilities: (1) The male player accentuates the female gender of his PC, in whatever subtle or not-so-subtle way, so that people know he's playing a female.  (2) The male player plays no difference in the PC.
> 
> ...




Let's go a third way. (3) Let the character develop naturally and believably without deliberately focusing on gender.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 21, 2010)

Hussar said:


> How to present gender?  Seriously?  THIS is your question?  Wow, I'm just really rather stunned as to think how to answer this.
> 
> Let's see - something as simple as requesting a separate room at the inn from the rest of the male party.  How's that for specific?
> 
> ...




Hmm. Okay. That's a much more basic level than I thought you were talking about, but certainly fair--albeit the kind of thing I more or less take for granted when running a female character. I can't imagine making a female PC and referring to her as "Lord X."

(Of course, separate rooms at the inn often goes by the wayside when party paranoia reaches a certain level... privacy is nice, but not being off on your own when the assassins show up is a lot nicer.)


----------



## Hussar (Aug 21, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Ok, so tell us. What makes them different? I've been wondering, because after several years of studying psychology and dabbling in sociology, I'm not sure. Maybe you could help me out.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course men and women are different. It is also likely that men, on average, differ from women, but that's much more difficult to explicate than the numerous and obvious differences that distinguish one individual from another.






pawsplay said:


> Let's go a third way. (3) Let the character develop naturally and believably without deliberately focusing on gender.




But that isn't even required.  You don't have to make something a huge deal in order to bring it to the table.  But, you do have to make enough of it to get it noticed.  

Let me turn it around.  Why play a different gendered character and then never reference it at the table?  Actually, let me broaden the question.  Why add any characteristic to a character and then never bring it to the table?  What's the point?

If your character is a 3 foot five midget with a lisp, but you never, ever reference this at the table, what was the point?


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 21, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> This is both the most gross mischaracterization of a post I have read in a while as well as a perfect example of a slippery slope falacy. I am not even sure that I will be able to respond in a way that will be understood.




I do apologize for that back there, though I quoted you, it wasn't actually directed at you.  It was more of a reaction to where I saw people saying they feel they should perpetuate the misogynist past or real life history and make life difficult for female characters.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Aug 21, 2010)

JustKim said:


> I'm a little concerned that some folks don't seem to really understand what makes male and female characters different.



That's because it's a tough question. Consider this: Randall Munroe wanted to do a survey about what people named colors. A friend of his, Elizabeth, wanted some data on chromosomes because she's color blind (which is rare for woman because the color blindness gene is 1) recessive, and 2) on the X chromosome). This lead to the question "do you have a Y chromosome?" on the survey.

Anyways, when Randall talks about the genisis of this question he says something that I find illuminating:


			
				Randall Munroe said:
			
		

> The role of gender in society is the most complicated thing I’ve ever spent a lot of time learning about, and I’ve spent a lot of time learning about quantum mechanics.




I find this interesting. It is a complex subject, and like many complex subjects, people deal with them differently in their choice of entertainment.

I don't have a problem with cross-gender roleplaying. Gender doesn't come-up a lot in my games, though I have a mix of genders among both the players and the PCs. 

I let players decide what they want to empathize about their players. It might be gender or race, but I've found that most people I play with want to roleplay things like their profession (e.g. that time they were impressed into being a galley slave). I will, sua sponte, bring-up gender or race of my own volition on occasion. I'm a little more likely to do this with half-elves, because I can call them things like half-breed and mongrel.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 21, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But that isn't even required.  You don't have to make something a huge deal in order to bring it to the table.  But, you do have to make enough of it to get it noticed.
> 
> Let me turn it around.  Why play a different gendered character and then never reference it at the table?  Actually, let me broaden the question.  Why add any characteristic to a character and then never bring it to the table?  What's the point?
> 
> If your character is a 3 foot five midget with a lisp, but you never, ever reference this at the table, what was the point?




Are you suggesting it does not matter if a character has any characteristics at all? I guess I'm not following. Assigning a character a gender has value because then the character has a gender. Or eye color. Or whatever.


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 21, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Are you suggesting it does not matter if a character has any characteristics at all? I guess I'm not following. Assigning a character a gender has value because then the character has a gender. Or eye color. Or whatever.




But making mention of it assumes that you're going to make a point of that.  Just because you're male or female, or orc or elvish, doesn't mean the player has any desire to play up that aspect.  While the GM can choose to make NPCs react differently to them, it is still the player's choice to return the reaction.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 21, 2010)

shidaku said:


> But making mention of it assumes that you're going to make a point of that.




I'm not sure about that. It would be really hard to run a game where all the characters lacked an identifiable gender.


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 21, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I'm not sure about that. It would be really hard to run a game where all the characters lacked an identifiable gender.




But most games are really like that.  Most female fighters aren't going to look that different from male fighters once you get them all dressed up in plate.  Given their education and occupation, they'll probably have a similar outlook on life.  Though physically somewhat different, a male and female barbarian are going to act more or less the same.  Druids, male or female, will still value nature over the personal self and both will likely have similar attitudes towards non-druids.

And unless you're going to make NPCs react differently based on the PC's gender, then for all intents and purposes, any value in different genders is only given to them by the player.  And noone but the player should attempt to assume why that player chose that race or gender.  Putting psychological issues(as mentioned by others earlier), personal tastes, or what have you on them just plays it up to be more than it's worth.

Mountain out of a mole-hill and all that.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 21, 2010)

JustKim said:


> I think we might have different ideas of the role of biology in our lives, but, you are absolutely right that gender differences manifest culturally. That's not to say they wouldn't exist without culture. Culture and expectations shape the way we think and behave, so there is nothing wrong with using cultural cues to shape a character. There's nothing disingenuous about it either, because it's how human beings shape their own identities. So if you say "I can't think of any gender differences that don't come down to culture," I wouldn't say you're inattentive at all, I would say you're looking too hard.
> 
> When I make characters, I take cues from real people around me. If these are cultural cues, it makes no difference. I look at my male friends and I see competition under a veneer of civility, I see conflicts that get resolved instead of simmering, I see easy bonds of friendship but private worlds that are never discussed. When I work outdoors, I see men returning to work before women, taking greater risks, and offering help instead of requesting it. When I work in the office, I see women preparing, instructing, and laying the tedious footwork that must always be done. In a workplace populated by women I see seething tensions and secret alliances, in any environment.
> 
> I see women who pass by donation boxes but cringe at the idea of a stray cat suffering, men who cannot help but pretend to be experts at everything, and I see little cues that make a character. The things that make a person interesting. They don't have to be true for everyone, they just have to evoke the right kind of person.




Thanks for the reality-based examples!  "You must spread some XP around..."


----------



## S'mon (Aug 21, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> I have a philosophy about gaming that I did not invent myself, but I definitely try to play by it. Players are often not able to portray the "character" of their character without help. Character is defined by how you conduct yourself in various circumstances, as well as how others react to you. So it is everyone's responsibility to bring out each other's characters, through creation of situations that will highlight features of your character, as well as portray the reactions of the rest of the world to your character's actions. This play style is often called "I will make you cool."
> 
> It goes like this. A player can state that their character is beautiful. It usually falls flat. Sure, they are beautiful. A GM can make the NPCs around the character behave as if the character is beautiful, maybe fawning, maybe jealous, maybe just extra polite. Then the character comes alive. A player can state that their character is strong. Sure, they are strong. A GM can make enemies fly away at the strikes of the character, and doors may explode into splinters at a blow from their hammer. The caracter has come alive. It is the interface of world and character that gives meaning to the choices made by players, and it is where the rubber meets the road for real role-playing.
> 
> For issues like gender, a player can state that their character is female. And it sounds like many people just forget about it after that. But a good group introduces situations that make the choice of gender matter. Like maybe the female warrior is constantly underestimated, until she kicks some major butt. Or maybe a female thief has an easier time distracting a mark because she is beautiful and winks at him. Or maybe an orc chieftain ignores the female leader of a party and speaks to the hulking but ignorant male barbarian, because maybe the orc is a mysogynist. Or maybe there are things that a male character just has no access to. Like maybe the private lives of the Women's Council in the village, the one that actually runs the show because they can "hold out" on the men who run the Village Council. Or maybe the Healing Women hold female characters to a higher standard "because a woman should just know better," but to those who can meet the standards, extra good stuff comes to them.




These are all good ideas and good GMing hints.  I agree strongly about "I will make you cool", an idea I picked up from reading Ron Edwards' _Sorcerer & Sword_.  And your examples of making gender matter - without disempowering or abusing any PC - are good too.  Sorry if I was over-defensive previously.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 21, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> As I said a couple posts ago, though--questions of anatomy aside, it _is_ all cultural




But 'anatomy'  here includes brain anatomy - men and women do think differently, on average, as Kim has explained.  And this is not a cultural construct or a result entirely of below-the-neck differences, though both certainly influence the evolution of sex differences in our brains.

Of course even IRL there are a few very female-brained men and very male-brained women, but they're the outer tails of their respective bell curve distributions.  Even in a 'masculine' role like warrior, almost every female warrior is different from the typical male warrior.  The same goes for men in traditionally female roles like nurse.

Say you're a female player wanting to play a male PC.  It may be you want to play an unusually feminine-minded man.  But you may equally well be wanting to get in touch with your masculine side and play a macho, aggressive warrior - without being 'stereotypical'.  IMO the 'stereotypical' or 'caricature' mode of play comes from a lack of internal aspect on the character, the player doesn't  really identify with the character they're playing and treats them like a joke.  And that can certainly be obnoxious and offensive.  But IME that sort of thing is rare amongst adults with any degree of maturity.  As I mentioned upthread I've seen it once, 23 years ago in a Star Wars game, and both me the GM and the player were 14 years old.  AIR the other 14 year olds at the table didn't think much of that player's antics, either.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 21, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> the way drow females treat males is pretty close to a mirror image of what you'd see in a strongly patriarchal Earth society.




Not at all, I'd say - fundamental reproductive biology is too important.  It's the drow females that bear the young.  So there's little point maintaining a harem of cloistered males, it won't improve the reproductive success of the dominant female.  Instead the males are largely expendable - eg they are still warriors, just as they would be in a patriarchy, and they are used in high-risk low-status tasks like long range patrols, so PCs often encounter patrol groups of mostly male drow, perhaps with a low-status female leader seeking to improve her place in drow society.  Meawhile the high-status females are very fussy about who they mate with, they can only bear a small number of young so they choose the very best among drow males.  Plus given humanoid biology they're going to be more vulnerable while heavily pregnant and in childbirth, so they may either look for a relatively trustworthy male, or else for a female subordinate/partner strong enough to protect them during this period.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 21, 2010)

shidaku said:


> But most games are really like that.  Most female fighters aren't going to look that different from male fighters once you get them all dressed up in plate.  Given their education and occupation, they'll probably have a similar outlook on life.  Though physically somewhat different, a male and female barbarian are going to act more or less the same.  Druids, male or female, will still value nature over the personal self and both will likely have similar attitudes towards non-druids.




That sounds a lot like a stylistic choice made on the point of a player, or perhaps on a campaign that decides to spend a lot of time in a dungeon. Sure, the half-orc paladin wears plate whether he's male or female. But at the formal event, only one of them is likely to wear a dress. And even though the "dress up like a civilian would" trope may be the same idea regardless of gender, a dress means different things than pants. An approach to casual sex is likely to be fairly different too, because unless birth control is 100% available and reliable, there are very different consequences for men and women every chance encounter. A male bard might come back to a town years later to find a child that looks kind of like him. A female bard is pregnant wherever she goes. Even in games where it's assumed that the GM won't get your character pregnant without your permission, I find that female characters are frequently more picky about their liaisons simply because the players find it more plausible. 



> And unless you're going to make NPCs react differently based on the PC's gender, then for all intents and purposes, any value in different genders is only given to them by the player.  And noone but the player should attempt to assume why that player chose that race or gender.  Putting psychological issues(as mentioned by others earlier), personal tastes, or what have you on them just plays it up to be more than it's worth.




If a GM doesn't acknowledge a PC's gender in some way, then it doesn't matter how much value the player puts on that gender — it's automatically next to zero. That in itself runs the risk of alienating the player. Maybe the player wants to run into prejudice, but maybe not: maybe the player just wants to see a barkeep say "ma'am" instead of "sir," or "milady" instead of "milord," because it gives the impression that the GM is paying attention to them, and trying to visualize the character they describe. If you get the feeling that just about any cipher of a player character could go through the campaign and nothing would change, it can remove any sense of ownership or belonging.

That said, so much of this seems to boil down to a communication issue. It's always easier not to talk about things, or to set up rules like "nobody can play cross-gender" or "everybody can play cross-gender" that can be pointed to instead of talking things out. But I'd always recommend talking with players about every character they make.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 21, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Are you suggesting it does not matter if a character has any characteristics at all? I guess I'm not following. Assigning a character a gender has value because then the character has a gender. Or eye color. Or whatever.




But, just because you wrote it on the character sheet, who cares?  Does anyone other than you look at your character sheet?  

Now, I do agree, the DM's gotta play ball here.  If the player actually does bring it up, and the DM does nothing, that's bad DMing.  Where I disagree is the DM has to start the ball rolling in the first place.  The DM's got four, five, six other players at the table to deal with.  That's a lot of balls to juggle and it can be pretty difficult for the DM to get things going to remind the other players that Bob's playing a female character when Bob can't be bothered doing it at all.

I still don't understand why asking players to actually play their characters is considered such bad advice.  If you chose to have a particular characteristic, obviously you had some reason for doing so.  Bring that reason to the table and I'm a happy camper.

Leave it completely behind and I gotta wonder why bother.

Like I said way upthread, I got totally burned out on people who played elves as humans that can see in the dark.  Every other race that gets chosen gets brought to the table in some fashion, but, IME, elf players just never bother.

But, as Bastarondo said, it's totally a communication issue.  The DM has to make sure that he or she is on the same wavelength as the player.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 21, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Like I said way upthread, I got totally burned out on people who played elves as humans that can see in the dark.  Every other race that gets chosen gets brought to the table in some fashion, but, IME, elf players just never bother.




True story: In a game I ran several years back, one player swapped out his character and decided to play an elf. Swashbuckler-type, and he decided to play an elf who likes humans — one who saw himself differently, but to avoid that elven arrogance. After a couple of months' play with the rest of the party, he found himself saying things like "Humans! Aaargh!" Which says something about the rest of the party. 

More seriously, one of my long-time friends was always fond of playing half-elves. Definitely she got into the mix of human and elf culture, but half-elf was virtually her go-to race. At one point, she was making a new bard, and wrote down "half-elf." So I asked her "Okay, what's her story? What about her half-elfness did you want to emphasize?" She sort of paused, and then decided that the character concept would work better as a human. And it did, over many years of play.

So that's why I ask. I make sure to ask in games where I get race/class combinations like "goliath bard" ("a Librarian who's from the bloodlines of the immense people who work deep in the stacks and move the heaviest books"), but even in innocuous cases like half-elf bard, I always would like to make sure I understand what the player's going for. Admittedly, for many players it may be nothing but a mechanical synergy: but if they're at my table, I have to make sure they have a distinct personality for those non-combat scenes, because there will be a lot of them.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 21, 2010)

shidaku said:


> But most games are really like that.




No, they're really not. And in fact, the first time the GM makes a pronoun error with the PC, the experience is going to be different for the player. Gender is not an inconsequential construct. The idea of gender-neutrality is conceivable only in a world with no genders. It's like the old joke... I don't have an accent, everyone else does. 



> Most female fighters aren't going to look that different from male fighters once you get them all dressed up in plate.  Given their education and occupation, they'll probably have a similar outlook on life.  Though physically somewhat different, a male and female barbarian are going to act more or less the same.  Druids, male or female, will still value nature over the personal self and both will likely have similar attitudes towards non-druids.




I agree that the characters are similar, but there a thousand something-elses that change the experience. For instance, let's say you defeat a vicious opponent. One of the PCs decides to urinate on the villain's corpse. That presents a substantially different picture if the PC is in question is the female fighter, versus a male fighter, versus another PC in the presence of the PC fighter, and so forth.

Characters have names, and the vast majority of names are gendered. The vast majority of names have associations, as well. 



> And unless you're going to make NPCs react differently based on the PC's gender, then for all intents and purposes, any value in different genders is only given to them by the player.




Isn't that enough?



> And noone but the player should attempt to assume why that player chose that race or gender.  Putting psychological issues(as mentioned by others earlier), personal tastes, or what have you on them just plays it up to be more than it's worth.
> 
> Mountain out of a mole-hill and all that.




I would be cautious in assuming, but I would not make NO assumptions. Human interaction largely doesn't work like that.

Here's a question for y'all. Imagine a player decides to play a prank on the other players. He's a male player. He conceives of a female barbarian and imagines what she would be like. However, he gives a male name and tells all the other players he is playing a male character. He plays only the psychological aspects of being female. First of all, can anyone tell? Second, is there any aspect of femininity that can be captured by the masculine mind? Third, is his character rendered unbelievable? Fourth, if a character is "more feminine" in behavior, what does that mean if we are talking about a male playing a male character?


----------



## InVinoVeritas (Aug 21, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Here's a question for y'all. Imagine a player decides to play a prank on the other players. He's a male player. He conceives of a female barbarian and imagines what she would be like. However, he gives a male name and tells all the other players he is playing a male character. He plays only the psychological aspects of being female. First of all, can anyone tell? Second, is there any aspect of femininity that can be captured by the masculine mind? Third, is his character rendered unbelievable? Fourth, if a character is "more feminine" in behavior, what does that mean if we are talking about a male playing a male character?




This can be possibly done as a transgendered barbarian, then (male body, female persona). Can anyone tell that a barbarian may be transgendered? Can the barbarian be played convincingly as transgendered? Is a transgendered barbarian believable? 

I'd say it's definitely possible.

Oh, and Dausuul: Jas is here. What's your opinion of her?


----------



## Abraxas (Aug 22, 2010)

InVinoVeritas said:


> Does Jas's cartoony romance and associated targeting as a weakness for her crush's nemeses count as elements you don't care to have in the game? Would that have changed if I were a woman?



Yes, and no it would not have changed. Also, as a player it would have annoyed the hell out of me for my PC to have been the target of such antics. Romance pretty much doesn't come up in the games I play in - other than completely off camera fade to black type events described with a sentence at most. It works for us, YMMV and all that...


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 22, 2010)

I've noticed a few people are weary due to real life cues, such as tripping over calling the male player "She" or "her" or hearing the distinctly male voice (or even worse, a terrible falsetto) for their character.

How would, or how does, your opinion change in an online game?


----------



## InVinoVeritas (Aug 22, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> Yes, and no it would not have changed. Also, as a player it would have annoyed the hell out of me for my PC to have been the target of such antics. Romance pretty much doesn't come up in the games I play in - other than completely off camera fade to black type events described with a sentence at most. It works for us, YMMV and all that...




Fair enough. I'm glad to have had the experience. For a second I was annoyed, too, about Jas becoming smitten, but, I figured, roll with it and make it mine, and see where it goes. 

I mean, I hope you're not saying that you'd be annoyed with Jas making googly eyes at a character that forced those very rolls on her. Besides that, the GM supplied the enemies and deals and all that.

By the way, this makes me think: who has romance in their games? I've had all sorts of different kinds of romance in all sorts of different ways, and I don't really worry about matching character gender to player gender. Certainly, it's usually a stretch to match character gender to GM gender. But otherwise--one night fade-to-black stands, Bond Girls, carefully calculated pregnancies, spouses, courtly love, being called away on family emergencies, crass distractions, crushes, puppy love, I've seen and done it all. Who else does?

And, before you ask, no, there's been no play-by-play of sexual encounters, ever.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 22, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I've noticed a few people are weary due to real life cues, such as tripping over calling the male player "She" or "her" or hearing the distinctly male voice (or even worse, a terrible falsetto) for their character.
> 
> How would, or how does, your opinion change in an online game?




Like...do you avoid playing _Tomb Raider _ or _Metroid _because of this?


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 22, 2010)

InVinoVeritas said:


> By the way, this makes me think: who has romance in their games? I've had all sorts of different kinds of romance in all sorts of different ways, and I don't really worry about matching character gender to player gender. Certainly, it's usually a stretch to match character gender to GM gender. But otherwise--one night fade-to-black stands, Bond Girls, carefully calculated pregnancies, spouses, courtly love, being called away on family emergencies, crass distractions, crushes, puppy love, I've seen and done it all. Who else does?




(raises hand)

Probably not to that same extent, but many of those things wouldn't qualify as "romance" for the players who are most interested in it. Though I can add "obsessive stalking" to the list. 

I find that for some players, a romantic subplot does a lot in terms of letting them feel as though they're really addressing the character's story. Sometimes more than any of the "kill the bad guys" objectives that pop up.



> And, before you ask, no, there's been no play-by-play of sexual encounters, ever.




It's kind of unfortunate that this even needs to be a qualifier for purposes of admitting "there is romance in our games." The only other place I can think of where romance equals graphic sexual content is certain breeds of "romance novel" aimed at bored housewives.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 22, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> The only other place I can think of where romance equals graphic sexual content is certain breeds of "romance novel" aimed at bored housewives.




Note to self: design _Housewives & Hussies _RPG...


----------



## Abraxas (Aug 22, 2010)

InVinoVeritas said:


> Fair enough. I'm glad to have had the experience. For a second I was annoyed, too, about Jas becoming smitten, but, I figured, roll with it and make it mine, and see where it goes.
> 
> I mean, I hope you're not saying that you'd be annoyed with Jas making googly eyes at a character that forced those very rolls on her. Besides that, the GM supplied the enemies and deals and all that.



Wait a minute...are you saying the other PC had some sort of power, an actual in game mechanical effect, that started the whole thing 

If that's the case that is something else I don't want in a game I play in - players should always get to choose how their PCs deal with other player's PCs. If a player has her/his PC use a power on another's PC, especially one that would change the victim's behavior, that's unacceptable (in general - I can envision a few uses where it could be necessary and explained in such a way that another player wouldn't mind)


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 22, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> That sounds a lot like a stylistic choice made on the point of a player, or perhaps on a campaign that decides to spend a lot of time in a dungeon. Sure, the half-orc paladin wears plate whether he's male or female. But at the formal event, only one of them is likely to wear a dress. And even though the "dress up like a civilian would" trope may be the same idea regardless of gender, a dress means different things than pants.




The "men wear pants and women wear dresses" is a usual trope of mass media to show that behind this tough woman there is a soft feminine side, and that can be true, just as behind this tough male soldier there can be a soft kitten-cuddling, rabbit-hugging soft side.  But there are just as often military women who wear pants, formal "outfits" look very much like mens outfits for them, some of them attend formal events in the miltiary dress uniforms.  And if we're still going with actual history here, throughout history, many men of many different social classes wore clothing similar to women.  Weathly Westerners of the past wore heels, with long skirt-like robes, the Japanse developed a variety of dress that is fairly unisex, it's purpose simply a light wear fitting to work or to fighting.  In poorer classes, men and women from around the world wore pants, because it was simpler and easier to work in than a dress.  



> An approach to casual sex is likely to be fairly different too, because unless birth control is 100% available and reliable, there are very different consequences for men and women every chance encounter. A male bard might come back to a town years later to find a child that looks kind of like him. A female bard is pregnant wherever she goes. Even in games where it's assumed that the GM won't get your character pregnant without your permission, I find that female characters are frequently more picky about their liaisons simply because the players find it more plausible.




Again, most games are going to assume sex is just sex, people who feel the desire to make sex into something more REALLY need to take their games less seriously.  And yes, it is something you COULD play into your character, but you could just as easily say your fighter was wounded and is sterile, or your druid uses the power of nature to control her cycle, or heck, your druid believes that having children is a GOOD thing, and wants to get pregnant, even in the middle of a grand adventure!  Yes, these are things you could portray as part of your character, but they are things that involve other things that generally only serve to complicate games.



> If a GM doesn't acknowledge a PC's gender in some way, then it doesn't matter how much value the player puts on that gender — it's automatically next to zero. That in itself runs the risk of alienating the player. Maybe the player wants to run into prejudice, but maybe not: maybe the player just wants to see a barkeep say "ma'am" instead of "sir," or "milady" instead of "milord," because it gives the impression that the GM is paying attention to them, and trying to visualize the character they describe. If you get the feeling that just about any cipher of a player character could go through the campaign and nothing would change, it can remove any sense of ownership or belonging.




I'm not saying that the GM shouldn't acknowledge the PC's gender, or that the GM shouldn't act on it at ALL, but just that, for most significant reasons that we should differentiate men and women, such as sex and child bearing, these things serve only to make the game more complicated in a bad way.  Which means they are by and large, things to be avoided.  And things avoided have no bearing on the game.



> That said, so much of this seems to boil down to a communication issue. It's always easier not to talk about things, or to set up rules like "nobody can play cross-gender" or "everybody can play cross-gender" that can be pointed to instead of talking things out. But I'd always recommend talking with players about every character they make.




I COMPLETELY agree, DMs and players should strive to communicate with each other the intent of the story and the intent of the players when making their characters.  Many games I've partaken of often have 2 or 3 "introduction" sessions to get everyone to meet each other, and for players to talk with the GM about what they want to do and how they want to do their character.



pawsplay said:


> No, they're really not. And in fact, the first time the GM makes a pronoun error with the PC, the experience is going to be different for the player. Gender is not an inconsequential construct. The idea of gender-neutrality is conceivable only in a world with no genders. It's like the old joke... I don't have an accent, everyone else does.



I'm not saying it's entirely inconsequential, just that it's much less significant than it seems it's being made out into.



> I agree that the characters are similar, but there a thousand something-elses that change the experience. For instance, let's say you defeat a vicious opponent. One of the PCs decides to urinate on the villain's corpse. That presents a substantially different picture if the PC is in question is the female fighter, versus a male fighter, versus another PC in the presence of the PC fighter, and so forth.



Women are actually capable of this....and this knowledge is...strange.



> Characters have names, and the vast majority of names are gendered. The vast majority of names have associations, as well.



In the real world?  sure.  In a fantasy world?  Only if you want them to.



> Isn't that enough?



Yes, but again, the value of it is determined by the player.  How "female" they want to be is up to them.



> I would be cautious in assuming, but I would not make NO assumptions. Human interaction largely doesn't work like that.



Fortunately for us all, in the particular setting of RPs, human interaction is only what you want it to be.



> Here's a question for y'all. Imagine a player decides to play a prank on the other players. He's a male player. He conceives of a female barbarian and imagines what she would be like. However, he gives a male name and tells all the other players he is playing a male character. He plays only the psychological aspects of being female. First of all, can anyone tell? Second, is there any aspect of femininity that can be captured by the masculine mind? Third, is his character rendered unbelievable? Fourth, if a character is "more feminine" in behavior, what does that mean if we are talking about a male playing a male character?



1: Could they?  Without an image, it's possible they might not, perceptions are funny things like that, everyone has their own.
2: That depends entirely on what that particular guy defines "feminine" as, and if he can appropriately translate that into his character.
3: Doubtful.
4: A more feminine man?  Again, it depends on what you want to define "feminine" as.  A feminine barbarian by barbarian standards could be a woman who likes her hair long, when it is impractical to fighting.  Or possibly "feminine" traits could be see as intelligence, ie: knowing how to read and write(an actual in-game option).  While neither of these traits would appear particularly feminine to outside society, or modern IRL society.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 22, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I've noticed a few people are weary due to real life cues, such as tripping over calling the male player "She" or "her" or hearing the distinctly male voice (or even worse, a terrible falsetto) for their character.
> 
> How would, or how does, your opinion change in an online game?




I don't have very much experience playing female PCs online, but as a GM I definitely find it easier to play female NPCs in-depth in a pbem or text-chat game.  It greatly reduces the potential for embarrassment IME.  Mind you I think it's also easier to play male NPCs in-depth online in text-based formats, because the format allows for much more time to think about the psychology of the character.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 22, 2010)

InVinoVeritas said:


> By the way, this makes me think: who has romance in their games? I've had all sorts of different kinds of romance in all sorts of different ways, and I don't really worry about matching character gender to player gender. Certainly, it's usually a stretch to match character gender to GM gender. But otherwise--one night fade-to-black stands, Bond Girls, carefully calculated pregnancies, spouses, courtly love, being called away on family emergencies, crass distractions, crushes, puppy love, I've seen and done it all. Who else does?




For me it depends a lot on the campaign.  Most games have a little; for one thing it would be implausible for all the PCs to be asexual.   Although I think my last two campaigns at my D&D Meetup (2008-present) have been entirely devoid of romance, partly by player preference I think.  My current online City State of the Invincible Overlord online game on dragonsfoot has much more of that, in 8 game sessions so far there have been two fade-to-blacks; one a one-night-stand, the other the start of a relationship between a PC and his NPC adventurer girlfriend.  By contrast there have been 9 combat encounters that I can recall, which is a much higher sex-to-combat ratio than I normally see in a D&D game!


----------



## S'mon (Aug 22, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> It's kind of unfortunate that this even needs to be a qualifier for purposes of admitting "there is romance in our games." The only other place I can think of where romance equals graphic sexual content is certain breeds of "romance novel" aimed at bored housewives.




When I was much younger and foolisher (ie ca 2002) I did once have a D&D PBEM derailed by a bored New York housewife in just this manner  - it can be a risk with a few players online, for whom 'roleplaying' may imply something different; the GM needs to set firm boundaries over what's acceptable.  Never been a problem in a round-table game though.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 22, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Note to self: design _Housewives & Hussies _RPG...




You might find that difficult - a couple days ago my wife was explaining to me the difference between RPGs and formula romance novels.  Basically, in an RPG it's very important to be in control, whereas romance novel plots centre around willingly surrendering control.  In an RPG, surrendering control normally leads to deprotagonisation, which is undesirable.  So you might be able to recreate the romance-novel form in game-book format, but almost certainly not in a regular RPG.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 22, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> Wait a minute...are you saying the other PC had some sort of power, an actual in game mechanical effect, that started the whole thing
> 
> If that's the case that is something else I don't want in a game I play in - players should always get to choose how their PCs deal with other player's PCs. If a player has her/his PC use a power on another's PC, especially one that would change the victim's behavior, that's unacceptable (in general - I can envision a few uses where it could be necessary and explained in such a way that another player wouldn't mind)




Casting 'charm person' on another PC seems at least as bad as physically attacking them - it's very bad table etiquette, to say the least, and should probably be forbidden.  A player who persists should probably be expelled from the group.


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 22, 2010)

S'mon said:


> You might find that difficult - a couple days ago my wife was explaining to me the difference between RPGs and formula romance novels.  Basically, in an RPG it's very important to be in control, whereas romance novel plots centre around willingly surrendering control.  In an RPG, surrendering control normally leads to deprotagonisation, which is undesirable.  So you might be able to recreate the romance-novel form in game-book format, but almost certainly not in a regular RPG.



Indie games have no problem with this. I have not played any, but I am pretty sure that there are romance RPGs in the indie scene. I think that Breaking the Ice is a romance RPG.

EDIT: 


			
				Indie Press Revolution said:
			
		

> Breaking the Ice is a Romantic Comedy role playing game for two players. Players help one another tell the tale of romance arising between two characters, and the set-backs and wacky twists the lovers' tale may take. Quick and easy, the game can be played in one sitting with no prior preparation required.
> 
> Play out the ups and downs of a couple's first three dates. From first bumbling attempts to get to know one another, to the stirrings of trust and desire. Watch the attraction flare, and see if the flame will light a fire that will last for a lifetime—or just burn brightly for a moment, and then flicker out.
> 
> ...


----------



## S'mon (Aug 22, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> Indie games have no problem with this. I have not played any, but I am pretty sure that there are romance RPGs in the indie scene. I think that Breaking the Ice is a romance RPG.




  The 'Romance Novel' formula =/= "dating" or even "romance", it's a very distinct formula where a powerful older man with some threatening characteristics falls for a younger,  relatively inexperienced female protagonist.  It's a very specific fantasy with a set structure.  I think it doesn't much resemble most "romantic comedies" either, though there are some transitional works with elements of both.

Edit:  That said, the formula would be much more workable in author-stance 'story creation' indie games than with the immersive, actor-stance, in-character approach of traditional RPGs.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 22, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> A female player once criticised me for my portrayal of a female character. My PC was a viking-type 3e barbarian, like Fafhrd, only female, with something like an 18 strength. The other player said she was a 'man in drag'.
> 
> It's a fair point, the character was very masculine, but I think she was wrong to expect all female PCs to be feminine, particularly adventurer types.




Is Xena a "man in drag"?  I think it's ok to play unusually male-brained female PCs.  But still remember they're female - the Xena/Gabrielle relationship is still different than it would be if they were male 'friends'.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 22, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> My girlfriend and I once played gay Dwarves. We were both male characters. The reasoning behind this was because the ratio of male Dwarves to female Dwarves was eight to one, so she reasoned that because of such a ratio there would be a much higher number of homosexual Dwarves. Which at the time made sense.
> 
> But I stopped when the real gay guy in the group made up a Dwarf to fight my girlfriend for my attentions. That was one of the creepiest experiences of my life.




1e AD&D Dwarves "lust after human women", per the PHB.  Like male humans lusting after female elves, male dwarves apparently like characteristics such as slender build and lack of facial hair more common among other races.

Later edition dwarves seem like dwarves though, or leave it to DM's discretion, in which case a preponderance of homosexual (or more likely bisexual/opportunity homosexual) dwarves would make sense.

I don't find the situation you describe creepy, BTW.  I think the gay guy was being rather considerate, having his gay dwarf hit on your girlfriend's PC rather than yours!   I've also seen gay male players show consideration for the straight male DM by playing heterosexual female PCs, rather than gay male PCs, which is a tradition that in literary and movie form goes back a long way.  I'm not comfortable DMing a romance between a gay male PC and a gay male NPC, but I'm fine with DMing a romance between a straight female PC and a straight male NPC, whatever the gender and orientation of the player.  Obviously other people have different (dis)comfort areas.


----------



## InVinoVeritas (Aug 22, 2010)

S'mon said:


> I don't find the situation you describe creepy, BTW. I think the gay guy was being rather considerate, having his gay dwarf hit on your girlfriend's PC rather than yours!




Actually, the phrase used was:



> fight my girlfriend for my attentions.




Against the girlfriend, for the dwarf played by the man.


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 22, 2010)

S'mon said:


> The 'Romance Novel' formula =/= "dating" or even "romance", it's a very distinct formula where a powerful older man with some threatening characteristics falls for a younger,  relatively inexperienced female protagonist.  It's a very specific fantasy with a set structure.  I think it doesn't much resemble most "romantic comedies" either, though there are some transitional works with elements of both.
> 
> Edit:  That said, the formula would be much more workable in author-stance 'story creation' indie games than with the immersive, actor-stance, in-character approach of traditional RPGs.




My ignorance of romance novels actually knows no bounds, so I will have to defer to your expertise.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 22, 2010)

Note to self: contemplate how literal the phrase "hitting on" may be taken in Dwarven romances...


----------



## avin (Aug 22, 2010)

This question shows up on Enworld from time to time. I still have my old opinion: this is a roleplaying game. You play a dwarf. You play an elf. You can play a girl.

The only GM Ipersonally  know  that has a problem with it spent a night with a tranvestite (on purpose) and was seen with her. He never touches the subject with us and never allows guys roleplaying girls.

I see guys roleplaying females all the time. Heck, I DMed a D&D group made of 3 girls and a guy. He decided to play a girl for the sake of don't being the strange on group


----------



## Scotley (Aug 22, 2010)

As a male player, I rarely run female characters. But occasionally, female fits the concept I come up with and that's what I play. As a DM I run female npc's frequently. I've got no interest in exploring sexuality in my games. Those aren't the sorts of 'adventures' the folks I game with are looking for. 

I play almost exclusively in online play by post games these days. When I'm coming up with character creation guidelines, gender never enters into it. Occasionally, I don't even know the gender of some of the players in the game. I guess that makes it easier in some ways.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 22, 2010)

shidaku said:


> The "men wear pants and women wear dresses" is a usual trope of mass media to show that behind this tough woman there is a soft feminine side, and that can be true, just as behind this tough male soldier there can be a soft kitten-cuddling, rabbit-hugging soft side.  But there are just as often military women who wear pants, formal "outfits" look very much like mens outfits for them, some of them attend formal events in the miltiary dress uniforms.  And if we're still going with actual history here, throughout history, many men of many different social classes wore clothing similar to women.  Weathly Westerners of the past wore heels, with long skirt-like robes, the Japanse developed a variety of dress that is fairly unisex, it's purpose simply a light wear fitting to work or to fighting.  In poorer classes, men and women from around the world wore pants, because it was simpler and easier to work in than a dress.




I'm sort of losing the thread of the argument here. Because there can be exceptions and rationalizations to make characters unisex, it is more comfortable and natural for characters to be unisex? Or is more that a GM has the tools to mandate unisex answers if it's somehow deemed necessary? Because the example I use came from a player who _wanted_ her character to put on a dress — something that nobody had ever seen said half-orc wear before, in part because it would challenge the character.



> Again, most games are going to assume sex is just sex, people who feel the desire to make sex into something more REALLY need to take their games less seriously.




You could say the exact same thing of any choice that has consequences in an RPG. Failing to disarm a trap means you could take damage from a trap? Charging an army with inferior strength and no plan could result in death? Mouthing off to the Dread Emperor-King means he might have you imprisoned or worse? You REALLY need to take your games less seriously. Sure, you can remove any potential consequences from sex for the sake of not wanting to focus on it, just as you can remove the possibility of death from combat or hazardous environments. But you're not some kind of weirdo if you don't. You can even say "I won't make your character get pregnant against your consent," and a player can still wind up spending gold pieces on contraceptives because it seems enjoyably in-character that the character would worry about such things, being bereft of the meta-knowledge of the social contract.



> And yes, it is something you COULD play into your character, but you could just as easily say your fighter was wounded and is sterile, or your druid uses the power of nature to control her cycle, or heck, your druid believes that having children is a GOOD thing, and wants to get pregnant, even in the middle of a grand adventure!  Yes, these are things you could portray as part of your character, but they are things that involve other things that generally only serve to complicate games.




Plenty of people like complicated games. Such complications are one of the things that differentiate RPGs from boardgames. I'm not saying that the ability to opt out is bad — far from it, I've had players tell me their characters were sterile for similar reasons, and that was fine! The ability to opt out is good, and in-game reliable contraceptives are a good design decision. However, the ability to opt in is also a good thing. 



> I'm not saying that the GM shouldn't acknowledge the PC's gender, or that the GM shouldn't act on it at ALL, but just that, for most significant reasons that we should differentiate men and women, such as sex and child bearing, these things serve only to make the game more complicated in a bad way.  Which means they are by and large, things to be avoided.  And things avoided have no bearing on the game.




All respect, but I cannot disagree more that these things only make the game more complicated in a bad way. Too much first-hand experience with gender differentiation and sexual identity as plot points that complicate the games in good ways. Some players want romantic subplots, which are impossible to do well if characters have no sexual preferences and no distinct attitudes toward sexuality in or outside of courtship or marriage. And some players (like the guy in my game who wants to have an angsty teenage romantic triangle) see romance as an opportunity to entertain everyone else at the table, possibly in comedic fashion. 

Again, I'll absolutely back you if you say people should have the option to opt out. Completely disagree with the concept that opting in is a bad idea. In my experience, it's only a bad idea if the people around the table don't want to do it (which is not always the case), or if they just plain suck (also, thankfully not always the case).



> I COMPLETELY agree, DMs and players should strive to communicate with each other the intent of the story and the intent of the players when making their characters.  Many games I've partaken of often have 2 or 3 "introduction" sessions to get everyone to meet each other, and for players to talk with the GM about what they want to do and how they want to do their character.




Heh. I will admit that I post from something of a privileged position, as I pretty much roleplay with longterm friends and co-workers. My most long-running games are with people I know so well that we're often talking about games when we're hanging out like we would anyway. Now and again I have to remind myself that not everyone plays that way. 



S'mon said:


> You might find that difficult - a couple days ago my wife was explaining to me the difference between RPGs and formula romance novels.  Basically, in an RPG it's very important to be in control, whereas romance novel plots centre around willingly surrendering control.  In an RPG, surrendering control normally leads to deprotagonisation, which is undesirable.  So you might be able to recreate the romance-novel form in game-book format, but almost certainly not in a regular RPG.




There was a somewhat light-hearted thread on RPGnet a while back about designing a Jane Austen RPG, in which the goal was to design mechanics for your character to be utterly passive until the right gentleman falls utterly in love with you and sweeps you away.

Being somewhat entangled with a romantic subplot for a PC like this, I can say it's not totally easy to incorporate that motif, but achievable. Surrendering control without being deprotagonized is basically the kind of compromise that goes into, well, a relationship. It also generally involves some understanding of a meta level: the player sets the boundaries for when she's going to be surrendering control, which usually happen after she's established some similar form of "control" over the NPC (like having him fall hopelessly in love with her.) Tricky stuff, and our version involved as much (if not more) talking about the nature of romantic subplots as actual play as prep, but doable.


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 22, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> I'm sort of losing the thread of the argument here. Because there can be exceptions and rationalizations to make characters unisex, it is more comfortable and natural for characters to be unisex? Or is more that a GM has the tools to mandate unisex answers if it's somehow deemed necessary? Because the example I use came from a player who _wanted_ her character to put on a dress — something that nobody had ever seen said half-orc wear before, in part because it would challenge the character.



Because there can be, and also can not be, it is upon the player's head to effectively communicate how far they want to take things.  The problem that's been presented here is when DMs say "well, you're playing a chick so I'm going to..." There's no choice in this situation, the DM has removed the choice, and nobody likes to lose control.



> You could say the exact same thing of any choice that has consequences in an RPG. Failing to disarm a trap means you could take damage from a trap? Charging an army with inferior strength and no plan could result in death? Mouthing off to the Dread Emperor-King means he might have you imprisoned or worse? You REALLY need to take your games less seriously. Sure, you can remove any potential consequences from sex for the sake of not wanting to focus on it, just as you can remove the possibility of death from combat or hazardous environments. But you're not some kind of weirdo if you don't. You can even say "I won't make your character get pregnant against your consent," and a player can still wind up spending gold pieces on contraceptives because it seems enjoyably in-character that the character would worry about such things, being bereft of the meta-knowledge of the social contract.



Of course you could, but unless you're playing with the Book of Erotic Fantasy, you're probably going to address sex from a social standpoint, whereas a trap would be addressed from a mechanical standpoint.



> Plenty of people like complicated games. Such complications are one of the things that differentiate RPGs from boardgames. I'm not saying that the ability to opt out is bad — far from it, I've had players tell me their characters were sterile for similar reasons, and that was fine! The ability to opt out is good, and in-game reliable contraceptives are a good design decision. However, the ability to opt in is also a good thing.



Exactly, the problem is, as I've noted, when you get DMs or players who want to go farther than the group.  It is a group game, and even if one guy wants to role play all the sex scenes, and one girl wants to get knocked up every time she has an "encounter".  It's opt in, or opt out, but it's also a democracy, the game only goes as far as the group is willing to let it go.




> All respect, but I cannot disagree more that these things only make the game more complicated in a bad way. Too much first-hand experience with gender differentiation and sexual identity as plot points that complicate the games in good ways. Some players want romantic subplots, which are impossible to do well if characters have no sexual preferences and no distinct attitudes toward sexuality in or outside of courtship or marriage. And some players (like the guy in my game who wants to have an angsty teenage romantic triangle) see romance as an opportunity to entertain everyone else at the table, possibly in comedic fashion.



True, again, this is one of those "talk it out and see how far everyone wants to go" moments.



> Again, I'll absolutely back you if you say people should have the option to opt out. Completely disagree with the concept that opting in is a bad idea. In my experience, it's only a bad idea if the people around the table don't want to do it (which is not always the case), or if they just plain suck (also, thankfully not always the case).



But is there not a certain degree to which once people have opted in, you are opted in as well?  Or vice-versus?  Lets say maybe Joe makes a joke about his female PC having a wild time and maybe getting knocked up.  Jill(playing a female pc) the player is mildly annoyed at him, but rolls with it, and says "okay, lets see if she got pregnant", the DM, being the fun sporting type plays along and tells Joe to roll a d20, if he gets say, 1, 10, or 20, his character is now pregnant.  Joe rolls a 20, and weirdness and hilarity ensue.

Except, like in the legal world, we now have a precedent, perhaps this group also includes Jack(playing a female PC), Frank(a male PC), and Jane(also a male PC), Frank doesn't care because hey, his PC is a guy.  Jane thinks it's all funny, but Jack is a little distrubed at this.  Now, Jack has a few choices, he can talk to the group, he can leave the group, but under pressure, he may acquiesce to the group decision, never voicing his discomfort.  

Once you get a certain level of approval(such as the previous statement by someone about their players agreeing female PCs get extra damage 3 days out of the month), you either much object, possibly being the group buzz-kill, or you must leave(which is never fun), or you have to roll with it.



> Heh. I will admit that I post from something of a privileged position, as I pretty much roleplay with longterm friends and co-workers. My most long-running games are with people I know so well that we're often talking about games when we're hanging out like we would anyway. Now and again I have to remind myself that not everyone plays that way.



You do, because if the above were to go down in my current group, I do not think I know people well enough to roll with it.


Again, I'm totally in favor of opting in or out, but because of the group dynamic, the one player who doesn't want to go down this road can often get steam-rolled into something they don't want to do.

Which, IMO, once you get past romantic entanglements, into the more physical aspects of men and women, then you start to complicate the game in a bad way.  Romance?  Sure, fine.  Love quad-rangles?  Confusing, but often fun.  Sexual encounters, if your PC desperately wants to have a baby, these things, they make the game complicated.  Especially when they are unilateral decisions made by a single obnoxious player, a iron-fist DM, or by simple group dynamic.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 22, 2010)

InVinoVeritas said:


> Actually, the phrase used was:
> 
> Against the girlfriend, for the dwarf played by the man.




Oops, yes I can see how that could be creepy!


----------



## S'mon (Aug 22, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> My ignorance of romance novels actually knows no bounds, so I will have to defer to your expertise.




My wife is working on a chapter for a competition, I have to know these things!


----------



## S'mon (Aug 22, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> There was a somewhat light-hearted thread on RPGnet a while back about designing a Jane Austen RPG, in which the goal was to design mechanics for your character to be utterly passive until the right gentleman falls utterly in love with you and sweeps you away.
> 
> Being somewhat entangled with a romantic subplot for a PC like this, I can say it's not totally easy to incorporate that motif, but achievable. Surrendering control without being deprotagonized is basically the kind of compromise that goes into, well, a relationship. It also generally involves some understanding of a meta level: the player sets the boundaries for when she's going to be surrendering control, which usually happen after she's established some similar form of "control" over the NPC (like having him fall hopelessly in love with her.) Tricky stuff, and our version involved as much (if not more) talking about the nature of romantic subplots as actual play as prep, but doable.




Interesting, thanks.  I don't think it would work in the kind of action/adventure games I GM/play, but interesting.


----------



## GrimGent (Aug 22, 2010)

S'mon said:


> You might find that difficult - a couple days ago my wife was explaining to me the difference between RPGs and formula romance novels.  Basically, in an RPG it's very important to be in control, whereas romance novel plots centre around willingly surrendering control.  In an RPG, surrendering control normally leads to deprotagonisation, which is undesirable.  So you might be able to recreate the romance-novel form in game-book format, but almost certainly not in a regular RPG.



Again, the set-up in _Maid_ covers that at least to some extent: the structure of play is essentially inspired by harem anime. All the PCs, the titular maids, compete for the favour of their employer, one central NPC who's mechanically inferior to them but holds a position of undeniable authority due to some source of power, ranging from musical talent to magical lore to military might. So while all the characters in the group are quite competent in their own right (a battle-oriented starting maid, who might be a death god while off-duty, can beat up shoggoths bare-handed), they typically spend their time using those abilities on behalf of someone else, and scoring points for how pleasing the results turn out to be. On the other hand, since the highest rewards come from saving the master's life, it makes sense for the players to arrange suitably threatening situations, by triggering random events if nothing else...

(I often describe the game as a cross between _Teenagers From Outer Space_ and _Paranoia_.)


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 23, 2010)

S'mon said:


> Casting 'charm person' on another PC seems at least as bad as physically attacking them - it's very bad table etiquette, to say the least, and should probably be forbidden.  A player who persists should probably be expelled from the group.



Ye gods, you play a different game than I do!

'Round here, charming other PCs is almost Standard Operating Procedure; it's far more useful than killing them, the other usual way of resolving arguments. 

(most extreme example came early in my current campaign: the 10-member party exploded into an all-hands brawl, and four of the ten had charming ability in one way or another...so they all charmed each other!  *That* took some sorting out...)

Lan-"charmed, I'm sure"-efan


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 23, 2010)

shidaku said:


> Because there can be, and also can not be, it is upon the player's head to effectively communicate how far they want to take things.  The problem that's been presented here is when DMs say "well, you're playing a chick so I'm going to..." There's no choice in this situation, the DM has removed the choice, and nobody likes to lose control.




Yeah, that's a problem. Of course, by my understanding, GMs saying "You can't play a chick, you're a dude," or vice versa is also a problem. The _real_ solution is probably not to give GMs like that one's custom, but anyhow.



> Of course you could, but unless you're playing with the Book of Erotic Fantasy, you're probably going to address sex from a social standpoint, whereas a trap would be addressed from a mechanical standpoint.




Which in a way makes it all the more dissonant to me that it's somehow "taking the game too seriously" to address the topic at all. Social consequences and save-or-die mechanics are both things that are only as fair as the GM implementing them; one's no more innately fair when you equalize the human element. 



> Exactly, the problem is, as I've noted, when you get DMs or players who want to go farther than the group.  It is a group game, and even if one guy wants to role play all the sex scenes, and one girl wants to get knocked up every time she has an "encounter".  It's opt in, or opt out, but it's also a democracy, the game only goes as far as the group is willing to let it go.






> Once you get a certain level of approval(such as the previous statement by someone about their players agreeing female PCs get extra damage 3 days out of the month), you either much object, possibly being the group buzz-kill, or you must leave(which is never fun), or you have to roll with it.




Honestly, it sounds more like an argument for group-specific ruling rather than certain content being better not to bring up at all as a general rule. I completely get behind "We can't have sexual content with these guys, they're juvenile but we like playing with them anyway when we avoid that." Still not seeing "GMs as a general rule should avoid sexual content," save with the qualifier "if you are playing with people you don't know well or don't care for outside of the gaming context."



> Again, I'm totally in favor of opting in or out, but because of the group dynamic, the one player who doesn't want to go down this road can often get steam-rolled into something they don't want to do.




Quite understandable. But perhaps you see that just as the advice I use to run my own game among long-time friends doesn't work as well with a group who has less of an away-from-table bond, advice that arises from the specific circumstance of a table with a less comfortable dynamic isn't necessarily universally applicable advice in its own right. 



> Which, IMO, once you get past romantic entanglements, into the more physical aspects of men and women, then you start to complicate the game in a bad way.  Romance?  Sure, fine.  Love quad-rangles?  Confusing, but often fun.  Sexual encounters, if your PC desperately wants to have a baby, these things, they make the game complicated.  Especially when they are unilateral decisions made by a single obnoxious player, a iron-fist DM, or by simple group dynamic.




I don't think it's the subject matter that complicates the game in a bad way, I think it's the presence of a single obnoxious player, an iron-fist DM, or a group dynamic wherein what some of the group wants to do disturbs others of the group. These are the real complications. It's sort of like the "evil characters" idea, really; it could stand a warning label but there's no way that it's always a joint negative. Sometimes you can simply address the fact that a character's sexually active in-character, and get an interesting encounter or character development out of it, without bypassing anyone's comfort level.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 23, 2010)

You know, after getting roped into playtesting _Watch Girls Adventures_, in which everyone plays a manga-inspired tween witch, I can honestly say I no longer have any conception of what I really, absolutely could not play. If you were playing in the same session, you would also have been playing a young, teenaged magical girl. I like Kiki as much as the next nerd, but it's pretty much the farthest thing from what I'm into in an RPG that I can imagine, stopping short of a hypothetical Jane Austen RPG or Forrest Gump 2: Gumped Again: The Role-Playing Game. But nonetheless, hey, I had a good time playing Aubergine, and if it's not my game of choice, that really doesn't stop me from investing in a character I find entertaining and relatively dimensional.

Really, playing a gang of tween witches with improbable hair colors should be required training for anyone who considers themselves a hardcore RPer.


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 23, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Really, playing a gang of tween witches with improbable hair colors should be required training for anyone who considers themselves a hardcore RPer.




This is almost sig worthy.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 23, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> This is almost sig worthy.




I have achieved marginal success with my quip.


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 23, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I have achieved marginal success with my quip.




This is no mean feat. I have very high standards.


----------



## Afrodyte (Aug 23, 2010)

For the people who'd disallow cross-gender play, what about transgendered players? Contrary to what people assume, you can't always tell - especially if the person has only started transitioning, is pre- or non-op, and/or has chosen not to disclose this information. Would they get to play characters of the gender they identify with? Would you demand proof of their gender identity (which is just - )? Would they only be allowed to play transgender characters of the same trans status as them (trans men playing trans men, and trans women playing trans women)?


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 23, 2010)

Afrodyte said:


> For the people who'd disallow cross-gender play, what about transgendered players? Contrary to what people assume, you can't always tell - especially if the person has only started transitioning, is pre- or non-op, and/or has chosen not to disclose this information. Would they get to play characters of the gender they identify with? Would you demand proof of their gender identity (which is just - )? Would they only be allowed to play transgender characters of the same trans status as them (trans men playing trans men, and trans women playing trans women)?




Moreover, how could you reasonably demand to know?


----------



## danzig138 (Aug 30, 2010)

S'mon said:


> Casting 'charm person' on another PC seems at least as bad as physically attacking them - it's very bad table etiquette, to say the least, and should probably be forbidden.  A player who persists should probably be expelled from the group.




Whether or not it's bad etiquette and should be forbidden, or even lead to expulsion is something that should be determined by the group. In my group, depending on the game and the characters, things like charming and attacking other PCs happens. As a GM, I'm certainly not going to tell them they can't do it. 

That's just basic game prep. Discuss whether or not pvp is allowed or desired.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 30, 2010)

To those who frown on cross-gender play:

Do you have in your games the old cursed item "Girdle of Femininity/Masculinity" or any other item that causes the PC user/wearer to change gender?

And if so, and a PC gets affected, do they have to retire from play until a "Remove Curse" succeeds?  What if the player doesn't see it as a curse and in fact doesn't mind the change; does that PC have to retire?

Lanefan


----------



## angelababy (Aug 30, 2010)

If somebody wants to play a character of another gender and act like a fool, they'd probably act like a fool regardless.


----------



## awesomeocalypse (Aug 30, 2010)

I'm against it, mainly because I don't think I've ever played with particularly good roleplayers. 

That is, most "roleplaying" that my players do falls under one of two headings:

1.) They basically play themselves, regardless of what's on the character sheet
2.) They pick a few traits they see as defining the character, and then embody those traits almost to the point of parody. So the nerdy, arrogant wizard becomes essentially a caricature of an arrogant nerd--he's always being a know-it-all and sneering at the "plebes" around him, or he's being a nebbishy wimp. He feels like the "brain" in a 5 man band from a Saturday morning Cartoon. Or that dumb, brutish half-orc barbarian is an absolute _idiot_ in nearly all situations, and all he wants to do is hit things. If they do mix it up beyond this, its nearly always with a "humorous" incongruity, like the half-orc barbarian loves fluffy bunnies or something.

This is understandable. I even do it myself, for the simply reason that most roleplayers aren't master thespians (god knows I'm not), and even if they were, bringing a nuanced character to life in a way that feels "real" is really, really hard (look at how many times Hollywood fails at it, and they've got not just professional actors, but teams of scriptwriters). The bar for roleplaying falls, in my experience, significantly below the bar one would set for actual actors bringing characters to life in a tv show, movie or play.

And thats fine.

Where I have a problem is when the "defining trait" about the character becomes a gender or a race, because IME, most players simply aren't good enough to build much additional nuance into their characters beyond a few "defining traits".

So I've had players who, in modern White Wolf games, stated that they were "gonna play a black guy." And then that character became a caricature of "blackness" in the same way that the arrogant nerd wizard became a caricature of arrogant nerddom. Except,caricatures of angry nerds can be funny, or at least, not-offensive. Caricatures of "blackness" as the average white nerd sees it...really aren't. That black fighter calling people "foo" or "homie" (or worse "my brother") and saying things like "sho nuff" just makes me really, really uncomfortable and takes me out of the game (in case you can't tell, this actually happened in one of my games). 

A similar thing tends to happen when my male players play women. Either they write "female" somewhere on the character sheet, and then proceed to basically ignore it and play the character the same way they play all their male characters. Or they decide to "roleplay a woman", and what emerges is a horribly twisted caricature of what some geek apparently thinks women act like (typically, ditzy, shallow and/or slutty. with bonus points for "comically" high-pitched voice).

I've never ONCE seen a male roleplayer play a female character in such a way that she felt noticably "female", without becoming a caricature, and while feeling like a fully fleshed out character in her own right. 

Given how rare male writers who can effectively write women, let alone male actors who can effectively play them, that's to be expected. It just means I'd prefer they don't attempt it in my games.

If others have had different experiences, then I'm jealous, because apparently they're playing with much better roleplayers (that is, actors) than I am.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 30, 2010)

awesomeocalypse said:


> I've never ONCE seen a male roleplayer play a female character in such a way that she felt noticably "female", without becoming a caricature, and while feeling like a fully fleshed out character in her own right.




It can and has been done. It's not much different from elf or dwarf played as just an annoying 1 trait stereotype but for some reason that's ok.




awesomeocalypse said:


> Given how rare male writers who can effectively write women, let alone male actors who can effectively play them, that's to be expected. It just means I'd prefer they don't attempt it in my games.




1) Write "female" on the char sheet.
2) Play the race/class combo as you see fit.
3) Pretend the character is male but take away reason, and accountability.
4) Done.



awesomeocalypse said:


> If others have had different experiences, then I'm jealous, because apparently they're playing with much better roleplayers (that is, actors) than I am.




Roleplaying and acting are not the same.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 30, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Roleplaying and acting are not the same.




This can explode into an horrendous argument on definitions, but...

Acting had the concept of "playing a role" for several _centuries_ before RPGs as we know them existed.  That's probably all I'll say on that.


----------



## awesomeocalypse (Aug 30, 2010)

> Roleplaying and acting are not the same.




The only difference, as far as I can see, is that sometimes you can get paid to act.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 31, 2010)

Umbran said:


> This can explode into an horrendous argument on definitions, but...
> 
> Acting had the concept of "playing a role" for several _centuries_ before RPGs as we know them existed. That's probably all I'll say on that.




All I'm trying to say is that one can roleplay in a situation without the need for professional acting skills. React to the stimuli of the game environment from the perspective of your assumed role and that's it. 
Funny voices, feigned emotions, etc are fine for people that would like to do such things but hardly required to roleplay well in a tabletop rpg.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 31, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> All I'm trying to say is that one can roleplay in a situation without the need for professional acting skills. React to the stimuli of the game environment from the perspective of your assumed role and that's it.
> Funny voices, feigned emotions, etc are fine for people that would like to do such things but hardly required to roleplay well in a tabletop rpg.



< You could switch every occurrance of 'roleplaying' in that with 'acting', and vice versa, and the meanings would still be exactly the same.

Just saying.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 31, 2010)

jonesy said:


> < You could switch every occurrance of 'roleplaying' in that with 'acting', and vice versa, and the meanings would still be exactly the same.
> 
> Just saying.




Not really. When acting, one is trying to get the audience to believe something that isn't true. When roleplaying one can simply react to situations without trying to "sell" the activity to anyone.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 31, 2010)

The major difference between roleplaying and acting I'd cite is that it's commonly accepted that you can roleplay in the third person. Most places, "Beonar swears an oath against meddling elves and their genitalia" would be considered roleplaying. Acting, on the other hand, rather relies on the first person to work.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 31, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> When acting, one is trying to get the audience to believe something that isn't true.




Not in general.  When acting someone might be trying to get an audience to believe that, if they swallow the general premise, the thing _could be_ true.  But that's not the same as getting them to believe it is actually true.

None of the cast of Star Wars was trying to get the audience to believe they were a documentary of actual events, but they were still acting.



> When roleplaying one can simply react to situations without trying to "sell" the activity to anyone.




You do that fully enough, and it is indistinguishable from acting.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 31, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> 1) Write "female" on the char sheet.
> 2) Play the race/class combo as you see fit.
> 3) Pretend the character is male but take away reason, and accountability.



Or give it some...

Lanefan


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 31, 2010)

I have been paid to role-play (I am studying counseling and get paid).
You can act in the third person (e.g. Greek chorus).
Acting is not synonomous with method acting.
Role-playing refers to both an action and to a hobby. I loosely divide the hobby (which I call "gaming" for clarity in an RPG context) into reading, role-playing, metagaming, and personal acualization (i.e. having a good time or becoming a more virtal person).


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 31, 2010)

Some Jerk said:
			
		

> You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Lanefan again.





			
				Some Jerk said:
			
		

> You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Barastrondo again.




I will restate that the way to sell a character is to have to world react to the character like they are what the player would like them to be. If the player wants the character to be female, s/he playes the character however s/he sees fit, and the rest of the players (GM included) roleplay the rest of the world reacting to the character as if she were female. Stereotypes are poor characterization, and do a poor job of selling a role because we inherently know how innacurate stereotypes are. We often just don't buy it when people play to them. Most intelligent people know that people are not stereotypes, and usually only act like that when they try to. If a character has a motivation to portray themselves as a stereotype (say a female thief who wants to put off the image of a ditzy damsel in distress to in an effort to lower the defenses of her marks, or the braggart gambler who is setting his opponents up to think that he can't really play), then playing to that stereotype is fun. Otherwise, it just seems shallow. 

Many people don't get this concept. Many people play characters badly. That is no reason to ban them from playing the character that they want to. If their play sucks, help them to improve it. Help them to sell themselves. Call them on their poor stereotypes, and help them to portray believable characters. Commit to making them cool and your games will only get better.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 31, 2010)

Nameless1 said:


> I will restate that the way to sell a character is to have to world react to the character like they are what the player would like them to be. If the player wants the character to be female, s/he playes the character however s/he sees fit, and the rest of the players (GM included) roleplay the rest of the world reacting to the character as if she were female. Stereotypes are poor characterization, and do a poor job of selling a role because we inherently know how innacurate stereotypes are. We often just don't buy it when people play to them. Most intelligent people know that people are not stereotypes, and usually only act like that when they try to. If a character has a motivation to portray themselves as a stereotype (say a female thief who wants to put off the image of a ditzy damsel in distress to in an effort to lower the defenses of her marks, or the braggart gambler who is setting his opponents up to think that he can't really play), then playing to that stereotype is fun. Otherwise, it just seems shallow.
> 
> Many people don't get this concept. Many people play characters badly. That is no reason to ban them from playing the character that they want to. If their play sucks, help them to improve it. Help them to sell themselves. Call them on their poor stereotypes, and help them to portray believable characters. Commit to making them cool and your games will only get better.



All good, though I personally like to go a bit "over the top" with whatever I'm playing when chance allows; mostly for the entertainment and amusement value.  And stereotypes can be a great top to go over! 

Lanefan


----------



## Nameless1 (Aug 31, 2010)

I agree. There is a time and a place for everything. I was mostly addressing the complaint that people go way too over the top for confort for many players. If there is no discomfort, playing to stereotype can lead to very amusing beer and pretzels type games. As long as the stereotypes are not uncomfortable for anyone. In these cases, the characters may not be "believable", but they can be fun anyway.


----------

