General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
1. For thems as have been posting in here, in your own games, how often do players run PCs not of their own gender? And what results do you get?
Or do you as DM even allow such? (in a thread here a few months back, a surprising number of DMs flatly and shockingly stated that such was banned in their games...a serious eye-opener, to be sure)
The game I currently play in has 3 male players and 2 female (was 3, and the lapsed player's PC is still in the party); yet the in-party gender ration is M-3/F-8. (we usually run 2 PCs each, if you're wondering at the math there...)
2. A long time ago, we made some changes to our 1e-based game rules to make it less sexist - to a point:
:::Human stat adjustments due to gender went out the window.
::warves were made to be male-centric (over 60% of all Dwarves are male; their females rarely if ever adventure), and Gnomes were made to be the reverse though not quite so militant about it. Female Gnomes and Male Dwarves can become stronger etc. than their opposites. Elves were *supposed* to become somewhat androgynous but that just never happened in play; I find I prefer the actual result over the theory anyway.
:::When I redid the pantheons to a "universal" system, male-female became the third great division, along with good-evil and law-chaos (and rated as more important than law-chaos); thus, by definition, gender equality at the divine level across all alignments becomes a pure and simple fact.
:::Cavaliers were charged with defense of the (supposedly-weaker) opposite gender - leading to loads of fun when there's a Cavalier of each gender in the party; as has happened once or twice.
3. While the selection of plastic female minis doesn't impress, I've noticed more and more really good female metal minis coming out of late; so all is not lost on that front.
1. For thems as have been posting in here, in your own games, how often do players run PCs not of their own gender? And what results do you get?
I'd say about 10-20% of the time. Results have been normal, that is, it really hasn't made a difference one way or the other on the campaign. We've also had a gay plotline back in a NYC campaign that was super. But that's the beauty of D&D again: the campaign can change to suit the group.
I can see selection pressures for gender (psychological) differences in synergy with sexual (physical) ones. It's difficult to separate socialization because human societies so far have been shaped by the same factors.
Basically, I have not found very much personal use for stereotypes. I'm not so much an extrovert as typically to deal with statistically representative samples. My really important relationships are with individuals, and I'm not surprised that they tend to be "square pegs" as much as me!
There are some sex-mapped trends that I have found helpful, especially in inter-sex dealings. Finding out a hard way that someone really is "like other guys / gals" makes an impression. There's a middle ground between ignoring such things and making too much of them.
In art (and for this purpose I include RPGs), contrast is an important element. There is no vision in its absence, but too few shades of gray can deprive a work of richness. What makes player-characters notable?
Last edited by Ariosto; 20th May 2009 at 07:07 AM..
I'd rather deal with sexism than not deal with it. If I were the D"&D brand manager, I would write the core rulebook from the standpoint of complete egalitarianism. I would make sure that genders were roughly equally represented in examples and that the specific examples did not skew in a certain direction (such as all people dying being female or whatever). I'd also make sure that my first set of miniatures intended for D&D PCs include at least one human female, preferably two (one with sword, one unarmored with dagger). I'd look for an attractive but respectful mix of art, and avoid outright cheesecake that defies any plausible explanation as being part of the game, e.g. non-functional "female" armor. A little cleavage is not, in my mind, a bad thing, with the understanding that women should be represented in a variety of ways and men should be represented in a similar fashion. For instance, a "rogue" in a somewhat fetishy corset is not out of place next to a male rogue in a loose tunic and tight pants, but a female "paladin" in a corset should not be standing next to a male paladin in functional armor.
In campaign settings, I would make gender roles an explicit part of how each and every culture and region is described. My own preference for classical fantasy worlds is a more medievally feel. Women adventurers are exceptional, but my assumption is that all adventurers are exceptional. In such a setting, farmers farm, knights collect taxes, men get conscripted, and women bear and raise children, but adventurers, being exceptional individuals, do not necessarily fit the everyday pattern. I think giving each culture its own way of dealing with gender highlights and illuminates the issues in an informative and entertaining fashion. In some cultures, women may be virtually property, in others they are deferential to men but equally valued, and in other cases, may be the dominant force in society. I think nonhuman races are an opportunity to go wild. Whatever dwarven men think of dwarven women, I am certain it little resembles anything in human history.
In non-traditional settings, whether picaresques like Talislanta and Glorantha or romantic fantasy like Blue Rose or whatever, I think the selection should be made according to personal, artistic, and marketing reasons. A completely egalitarian D&D campaign setting makes a lot of sense. However, I think it would be completely unworkable. I think most players would reject a world where men shared child-rearing responsibilities evenly with women, men and women had unisex names and wore mainly unisex clothing, and the culture entirely lacked what most people would consider "natural" gender roles found in our culture, such as the sexually aggressive male and the enticing but demure female. Sure, you could write a game world that was egalitarian by 21st century Western standards, but it would be loaded with sexist content. For instance, if the author was American, they might assume an all-male or mostly-male infantry, but there are plenty of places in the world where women have fought in standing armies, including most Communist countries. Just covering breasts on women might seem as quaint to some humans, as hoop skirts are to the modern mind.
Can a truly egalitarian game book gain mass market success in a world where Brittney Spears is a pop star?
1. For thems as have been posting in here, in your own games, how often do players run PCs not of their own gender? And what results do you get?
Or do you as DM even allow such? (in a thread here a few months back, a surprising number of DMs flatly and shockingly stated that such was banned in their games...a serious eye-opener, to be sure)
As a DM, I don't care if you play your gender or not.
As a player, I try to play the gender the PC concept suggests...or in some cases, demands. If this means playing a female (I'm male), so be it.
For some reason, this makes some of my GM's (past and present) uncomfortable. Some are so uncomfortable with the concept that they flat-out forbid opposite-gender PCs. So if they won't let me do it, I change PCs and place "the offender" in a file to be used later.
Quote:
3. While the selection of plastic female minis doesn't impress, I've noticed more and more really good female metal minis coming out of late; so all is not lost on that front
.
I made a similar observation a few pages ago- I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in at least perceiving that.
"Is wish-fulfillment game X viable" is to me something other than whether it should be D&D. I don't find D&D "better" for being made more like RuneQuest -- or vice-versa. I don't look forward eagerly to the day when the neighborhood hamburger stand falls to McDonald's.
Good to hear. Care to post some of these GMing techniques?
P.S. What's special about Californians? I think I'm missing a reference/joke.
Just that Californians tend to be particularly sensitive, including sensitive to perceived *isms.
Techniques - trying to remember - well, in the campaign that was perceived to be sexist, it was set in a vaguely patriarchal Gygaxo-medievalesque area. The premise was that the PCs were working for a nobleman - which I think was a problem if they wanted to do something different. The big problem actually was that the female players' perception of the campaign seem to be filtered through one of the male players (not Matt), who had a very skewed take on it, and by the time I realised that it was too late. So I've looked out for that. Another issue was a female noble NPC the PCs had to rescue at least twice; I think she was arguably a sexist character, or at any rate my portrayal of her was not great. The problem there was that she was the only female NPC in a position of power that the PCs had dealings with.
So, I think the main thing in subsequent campaigns has been to avoid rescue-the-princess scenarios, except when running published scenarios (eg Rahasia). The next campaign I ran was Lost City of Barakus; it doesn't include any female NPCs in positions of power except for one villain, but it's a sandbox and the PCs are free to do whatever they want. The only time the PCs encountered a damsel in distress, she had escaped from slavers herself, the PCs just escorted her back to town and she became a valuable contact as a magic item broker.
The next, current campaign I'm running (Willow Vale) is mission/scenario based; the PCs work for the king and he sends them on missions. This is potentially like the 'problematic' campaign, and again pretty much all the NPCs in positions of power are male. However where the first campaign was set in a civilised realm, this is a 'points of light' setting where everyone needs to work together to survive; sexism is irrelevant when every heroic PC is vital to the survival of the realm. The general thing has been to avoid sexist portrayals of female NPCs. Actually I told off a player who had his dwarf PC making sexist comments to a female PC of (the only) female player, my feeling is that it may be 'all in character' but it can easily create a bad atmosphere.
Another thing about the original campaign - I couldn't get through to the female players that while the setting was somewhat patriarchal, this didn't noticeably affect the ability of female PCs to achieve positions of power. They had already formed an impression of powerlessness based off their perceptions filtered through the male player who tended to dominate activity at the table. So I've kept an eye out for any sign such dynamics could be forming; luckily this has not been a problem since.
One useful technique in the Barakus campaign was to give each PC several useful NPC contacts, who they could detail themselves. That way the female players and PCs had independent sources of information and power. For instance, one female player's PC was an army veteran; one of her contacts was a wealthy retired general. This relation was independent of any of the other PCs.
Hmm, thinking about it I think I'll start using that Contacts system again in my current Willow Vale game - I've been looking for ways to open it out. Thanks Shilsen.
1. For thems as have been posting in here, in your own games, how often do players run PCs not of their own gender? And what results do you get?
My wife is more comfortable playing male PCs; when she plays female characters they tend to be too danger-averse to actually adventure. I quite like playing female PCs, but I tend to only play them with female GMs, who IME are more likely to be supportive.
My last two campaigns, everyone has played a character of the same sex. Some female players who are sensitive about sexism don't want to have to play a male PC in order to have equal opportunities. Also, my current game is an open-access one at a club with constantly changing players; in that environment players may prefer to play a PC of the same sex for ease of identification.
It wasn't intended to be "an example of how women are as sexist as men". It was an example of how sexism can be a problem sometimes (the regular game) but not others - the Conan game. The reason K gave me was that in the regular game she felt constrained, in the Conan game she could do what she liked, ergo the sexism of the setting was not a problem.
Obviously I had absolutely no problem with K and L's PCs acquiring nubile young male companions in an inversion of the usual conquering-male-barbarian tropes. I don't know if this was 'sexist' in some way, and I don't care. They enjoyed it, I enjoyed it, it was fun.
Then let's leave that bit of ancient history to history, and not distract from the rest of the thread any further.
On the bright side, that unpleasant experience caused me to develop some GMing techniques to help ensure that future female players IMCs wouldn't have their enjoyment affected by perceived sexism, and in two subsequent lengthy campaigns with several female players (including two Californians!) I've not had any complaints.
Very glad to hear it.
I'm sure, in all honesty, that if you subjected the campaign that I'm currently running to the same sort of scrutiny as I did yours, then you'd find that mine has problems (in terms of attitudes to race, sex or similar) so I'm not going to claim I'm some sort of perfect GM in this regard. All anyone can do as a GM is to listen to their players when they raise an issue and address it, and to make sure that players feel that it is possible to raise an issue if they want to.
__________________ DM of Adventure Path Story Hour (now in Thunderspire Labyrinth!): Ryam Plays Dice - updated 8th June 09 (campaign on indefinite hiatus).
Player in Swordlands Story Hour: Interview with a Fey - updated 15th June 09. News just in - this campaign may be restarting in the near future! Watch this space!
I also have the singular honour of being Rouseketeer #20.
I suppose what I don't like is the vibe, explicitly stated in Matthew_Freeman's post here, but really kinda running throughout the thread as a whole (as much of it as I've read anyway, which admittedly is far from the entire thing:
So... either we're anti-sexism activists, or we're unaware and ignorant people who are contributing to the problem. What does not seem to enter the realm of possibility for you is that I (and I consider myself a fairly representative gamer for my age group) am perfectly aware of what is and isn't sexist behavior and yet I still see no call for change in the gaming arena over all. I don't believe products (in general) are sexist (in fact they're so deliberately non-sexist that it calls attention to itself, which is generally a sign of having gone too far as far as I'm concerned.) I don't believe the people I game with are sexist. I make no claims about the discussion on ENWorld in general, or about gamers other than those I know personally, because I've been posting very infrequently here the last few years, and besides, I'm neither responsible for their behavior, nor particularly interested in it either.
Thanks for spelling out your position in more detail.
Having spent time discussing these issues with my partner, I think that it's easy to misunderstand how your behaviour comes across to other people. I'm certainly not of the belief that you're a rampant sexist that thinks all women are beneath him and can be treated as objects or anything like that.
You state that you don't think the people you game with are sexist, and I am sure you're probably right. Would you mind giving me a bit more detail about the make-up of the group - is it all male, a mix, and what sort of ages?
In terms of whether or not Western society is sexist - we're going to have to agree to disagree on that. If you take a look at the sites linked to earlier in the thread, you can certainly see that there is a lot of analysis of current issues, focusing on a sexism angle. I find it hard to believe that you could spend some time reading those blogs and not admit that there is a problem with sexism in society, even if we differ in terms of how much of a problem it is.
Finally, to bring the issue back to gaming, I think it's clear (for me) that there are still problems within D&D as a gaming hobby in terms of sexism. I was thinking about the NPC's in Keep on the Shadowfell, and it's notable that the priest in Winterhaven is female, whereas the Lord is male. I also noted that the Lord's wife is not mentioned at all, presumably as the adventure writer didn't think she would be relevant to the game.
This isn't, per se, something I would say is blatantly sexist and a huge problem, but it is indicative of the wider attitudes that permeate gaming and D&D, and as such it is worth bringing up.
__________________ DM of Adventure Path Story Hour (now in Thunderspire Labyrinth!): Ryam Plays Dice - updated 8th June 09 (campaign on indefinite hiatus).
Player in Swordlands Story Hour: Interview with a Fey - updated 15th June 09. News just in - this campaign may be restarting in the near future! Watch this space!
I also have the singular honour of being Rouseketeer #20.
Well, glad you read them. I don't understand how you can not care about whether or not the research is true or not. The research disproves exactly what you state there about social factors. Why don't you care if it is true or not?
I mean, this thread is about sexism in D&D. If sexism is caused by biology, then it shouldn't be attacked, decried, and argued away any more than eyesight and the need for oxygen.
But, alas, I think we have two different approaches here. The facts of the world as it is are important to me. If I read you correctly, they aren't to you. Perhaps, in a thread on a fantasy game, I am indeed the odd one out.
I think the thing you're missing is that whilst you maintain that sexism is a biological factor, other people disagree. There really is no completely concrete evidence that fully proves one thing or the other. Personally, I also disagree that evolutionary psychology is correct, and I would also maintain that societal factors are much more important than biology in terms of deciding how the various parts of humanity interact with each other.
Wikipedia, also, is not an academic source. Whilst that article is written by a conglomeration of people that all agree with it, it has not been peer reviewed in an academic fashion and as such shouldn't really be used as evidence that a particular viewpoint is correct.
We're probably going to have to agree to disagree on this one, sadly.
__________________ DM of Adventure Path Story Hour (now in Thunderspire Labyrinth!): Ryam Plays Dice - updated 8th June 09 (campaign on indefinite hiatus).
Player in Swordlands Story Hour: Interview with a Fey - updated 15th June 09. News just in - this campaign may be restarting in the near future! Watch this space!
I also have the singular honour of being Rouseketeer #20.
The thing I run afoul of in seeking to create purely egalitarian societies in a fantasy setting is that I work under the general assumption that all the "civilized" races had their night in the barrel when it comes to barbarism / tribalism. In a points-of-light setting, I'd have to generally assume that the distance between any given civilization and a hasty return to barbarism / tribalism is approximately 1-2 generations.
Fair enough. I'm not commenting on all of your post, but the thing I like about it is that you have a pretty well-reasoned argument for gender roles in the game as well as not seeming exclusionary towards one gender, and I like that. I might quibble about some things, such as the assumption about all the civilized races having gone through barbarism/tribalism and that having a similar effect. I personally find it much more interesting to have variation there as well as to emphasize the way the very divergent nature of the various fantasy races mediating the effects of their history in different way. But that's a small quibble.
Quote:
I recommend keeping a weather eye open to how this cuts both ways. Sexism is not exclusively women being forced to conformity by oppressive men.
Sure. And I think one of the ways in which one can deal intelligently and interestingly with sexism in the game world is to have divergent expressions of it, sometimes even within the same society.
Quote:
Armed foreign males are going to be assessed as threats in many villages and smaller towns too, regardless of patriarchy or matriarchy.
And armed foreign females too, of course.
Quote:
Adventurers are generally freaks who take outrageous risks and refuse to conform to socially valuable roles of mothers and fathers. Until they establish roots or reputation that give them social value / status they are going to catch flak for failing to conform to social norms, which are largely rooted in gender roles.
I'd quibble here again that social norms don't necessarily have to be largely rooted in gender norms, esp. not in all parts of a fantasy world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bumbles
Well, I hope they do, but I know I can barely keep track of my own posts let alone everybody else's. So while I'm willing to cut you some slack, I'm also going to suggest parts where you could possibly be saying things poorly, which is a bad thing when it's a potentially divisive subject like this.
Sure. Suggestions are always welcome, though I might not always agree about how much slack you're cutting me
Quote:
Anyway, take a look at that review, wish I knew if the PDF was still available, but if not, maybe there's an opportunity for another one!
I did get around to looking at it. Very interesting, and it might be fun to play in for a one-off campaign, but I don't think I'd care to play something like that for the long-term. I certainly wouldn't recommend it be the default for D&D core rules and campaign settings. It might work well as one area in a campaign setting, however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariosto
In the 4E PHB:
I think we've got general consensus here that the PHB is very egalitarian in its presentation of the sexes. The artwork, however, is a little silly sometimes. If you look at the class pictures, apparently the female dragonborn, dwarf, elf, half-elf and human decided that showing cleavage in a fight and having no armoring over the upper part of the chest is a really good idea, whereas their male counterparts were clever enough to cover up
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ycore Rixle
Shilsen, did you (or Proserpine) read my earlier posts?
I don't see any response. Maybe I am missing it.
We did. Canis seemed to have responded to them adequately, so I hadn't commented.
Quote:
But it seems like there was a major piece of the whole sexism debate that you weren't even aware of. Namely, the research on sex differences in cognitive abilities.
Actually, it's a major part of the sexism debate which I'm very aware of, and a part which I think is either wrong or misapplied and usually both. In the context of this thread, I personally think it's also irrelevant.
In short, since I am commenting on the existence of sexism in a fantasy world, which is inhabited by creatures that are patently not the same as real world humanity (and humans in the D&D world, if simply by reason of the fact that sexual dimorphism is much smaller - if not non-existent - there, are not really like real-world humans either) and have certainly not experienced the same history and cultural development as humans in the real world, any difference in real world cognitive abilities wouldn't matter. Especially since such supposed differences don't really affect whether an individual male or female can play and enjoy D&D.
Quote:
Do you have any thoughts or feedback on that? The research I linked to is on page 13. It has a lot of impact on how we should look at sexism in RPGs.
As Canis commented, that's just an example of really bad science. Which is only one reason why I think it has no impact on how we should look at sexism in RPGs.
Quote:
As for your proposed solutions, I think there is a problem with #4. Both of them don't work equally well in a mass-marketed product.
Mass-marketed products, and the market itself, change and develop all the time. If they didn't, then D&D today would be exactly the same as D&D in 1974 (or 2001), and it isn't.
Quote:
Precisely because of biological, hard-wired sexism.
Assuming that one actually believes biological, hard-wired sexism exists and, more importantly, has more of an effect than social and cultural influences. Even if (and that's a big if) biological hard-wired sexism existed, what sort of influence it has is so heavily mediated and overwhelmed by social and cultural (and, most importantly, individual) influences that I think they're irrelevant here.
Quote:
For the same reason pink footballs and machine gun slug-throwing Barbies don't sell as well as pigskin footballs and Malibu Barbies, "rescue the prince" plotlines don't sell as well as "rescue the princess" stories.
That's almost exclusively cultural. As for gaming, I've used the example of Eberron before, which is a setting that is essentially egalitarian towards the sexes in its presentation. It lends itself equally well towards "rescue the prince" as "rescue the princess" plotlines. And it's selling just fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ycore Rixle
Well, glad you read them. I don't understand how you can not care about whether or not the research is true or not. The research disproves exactly what you state there about social factors. Why don't you care if it is true or not?
Speaking for myself, I don't think it's true, because the science seems really poorly one. Canis, who's much more well-educated on the subject than me, asserts that it is and I believe him. And even if it were true that wouldn't necessarily mean that it's important.
Quote:
I mean, this thread is about sexism in D&D. If sexism is caused by biology, then it shouldn't be attacked, decried, and argued away any more than eyesight and the need for oxygen.
That's my point. Sexism isn't caused by biology. Even if there are intrinsic differences between the sexes, whether the one your link points to or not, the influence of these supposed distinctions is utterly negligible in comparison to the effects of society and culture. The entire meaning of 'male' and 'female' is different depending on where you are in the world right now, and has changed drastically over the course of human civilization. There is not a single quality considered masculine or feminine in one place right now which has not, at some point, been considered the opposite elsewhere. The very number of the genders has varied from culture to culture, with many cultures having multiple genders and recognizing all of them equally. So, no - I don't see how sexism is caused by biology. And, I reiterate, I especially don't see how real world sexism is that relevant to whether it should exist in a fantasy game which is not about the real world.
[quote]But, alas, I think we have two different approaches here. The facts of the world as it is are important to me. If I read you correctly, they aren't to you./quote]
That's a big assumption. What you're describing as the facts of the world are things which I don't think are the facts of the world, and are rather both a misunderstanding and a misrepresentation of them. And that is why we are differing here, not because you are focusing on the facts of the world and I am (or Proserpine is) not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariosto
The wider cultural context from which people approach the game is something to consider.
In short, agreed. But I should also note that the precise relevance of these cultural contexts to how sexism is portrayed in a fantasy world is something we might disagree about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathew_Freeman
I think the thing you're missing is that whilst you maintain that sexism is a biological factor, other people disagree. There really is no completely concrete evidence that fully proves one thing or the other. Personally, I also disagree that evolutionary psychology is correct, and I would also maintain that societal factors are much more important than biology in terms of deciding how the various parts of humanity interact with each other.
What he said.
And, as I keep repeating ad nauseam in this post, I seriously don't see why the societal factors and biology of our world should even be that relevant to how we portray the sexes and sexism in a fantasy world, much (if not all) of which clearly does not share either our societal factors and biology.
__________________ shilsen is broken - Crothian (and this is why)
My Eberron Story Hour. Updated November 12. Almost at the climax!
That's my point. Sexism isn't caused by biology. Even if there are intrinsic differences between the sexes, whether the one your link points to or not, the influence of these supposed distinctions is utterly negligible in comparison to the effects of society and culture. The entire meaning of 'male' and 'female' is different depending on where you are in the world right now, and has changed drastically over the course of human civilization. There is not a single quality considered masculine or feminine in one place right now which has not, at some point, been considered the opposite elsewhere. The very number of the genders has varied from culture to culture, with many cultures having multiple genders and recognizing all of them equally. So, no - I don't see how sexism is caused by biology. And, I reiterate, I especially don't see how real world sexism is that relevant to whether it should exist in a fantasy game which is not about the real world.
Ah - this is one of the things that's been bubbling away in my head to say, but that I couldn't find the words for. Thank you.
1. For thems as have been posting in here, in your own games, how often do players run PCs not of their own gender? And what results do you get?
In my tabletop games, it's been pretty rare, but when it's done, it's worked well. In the online games I'm in (a lot), there's a lot of genderbending and it's generally done well there too. Better, I think, since the player isn't visually there to serve as a contrast to the PC anyway. BTW, I'm commenting on games I'm in rather than just ones I've run, since I'm DMing much less recently.
Quote:
Or do you as DM even allow such? (in a thread here a few months back, a surprising number of DMs flatly and shockingly stated that such was banned in their games...a serious eye-opener, to be sure)
I certainly allow it as a DM. And I think I saw the thread and wasn't at all surprised by the responses there. Mainly because I'm (as this thread indicates) aware of some of the problematical issues with gender/sexism in the world in general and so I'm not surprised (though hardly delighted) to see the same in gaming and among individual gamers/groups.
Quote:
The game I currently play in has 3 male players and 2 female (was 3, and the lapsed player's PC is still in the party); yet the in-party gender ration is M-3/F-8. (we usually run 2 PCs each, if you're wondering at the math there...)
Interesting.
Quote:
2. A long time ago, we made some changes to our 1e-based game rules to make it less sexist - to a point:
...
Sounds like fun. I especially like the bit with the cavaliers of different genders
Quote:
3. While the selection of plastic female minis doesn't impress, I've noticed more and more really good female metal minis coming out of late; so all is not lost on that front.
True. As I think I've been saying pretty regularly, the situation is improving. I just figured it was worth having a discussion on what could use some work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ycore Rixle
I'd say about 10-20% of the time. Results have been normal, that is, it really hasn't made a difference one way or the other on the campaign. We've also had a gay plotline back in a NYC campaign that was super. But that's the beauty of D&D again: the campaign can change to suit the group.
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariosto
I can see selection pressures for gender (psychological) differences in synergy with sexual (physical) ones. It's difficult to separate socialization because human societies so far have been shaped by the same factors.
Only if we paint in broad strokes, I'd say. Even if some factors appear broadly similar I think there are often key differences. And the fact that different societies have such wildly different ideas of gender (and change their ideas as time goes on) is particularly instructive too.
Quote:
In art (and for this purpose I include RPGs), contrast is an important element. There is no vision in its absence, but too few shades of gray can deprive a work of richness. What makes player-characters notable?
They kill creatures and take their stuff better than other people ?
More seriously, I think the main thing which makes them notable is that the campaign revolves around them. All else is secondary, though other things may develop from (or aid in) the campaign revolving around them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pawsplay
I'd rather deal with sexism than not deal with it. If I were the D"&D brand manager...
Very nice suggestions.
Quote:
In campaign settings, I would make gender roles an explicit part of how each and every culture and region is described. My own preference for classical fantasy worlds is a more medievally feel. Women adventurers are exceptional, but my assumption is that all adventurers are exceptional. In such a setting, farmers farm, knights collect taxes, men get conscripted, and women bear and raise children, but adventurers, being exceptional individuals, do not necessarily fit the everyday pattern. I think giving each culture its own way of dealing with gender highlights and illuminates the issues in an informative and entertaining fashion. In some cultures, women may be virtually property, in others they are deferential to men but equally valued, and in other cases, may be the dominant force in society. I think nonhuman races are an opportunity to go wild. Whatever dwarven men think of dwarven women, I am certain it little resembles anything in human history.
I have certain significant issues with medieval settings in D&D, for reasons I've already covered in this thread so I won't go into them again. But other than that personal quibble, I like these ideas too. Especially the one about nonhuman races. I've always thought that's an avenue for a lot of creativity and fun, not just where it comes to gender but in all areas.
Quote:
A completely egalitarian D&D campaign setting makes a lot of sense. However, I think it would be completely unworkable.
...
Can a truly egalitarian game book gain mass market success in a world where Brittney Spears is a pop star?
Interesting points, but I'm not sure I'm defining egalitarian exactly the same way you are. I think you can have egalitarianism while having certain somewhat more common gender roles.
And my answer to your last question is "Yes." Did I mention that I'm just as much an optimist as a cynic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz
As a DM, I don't care if you play your gender or not.
Same here, as I said. On a semi-related note, I've seen lots of men play flat, stereotypical, boring male PCs, and women play flat, stereotypical, boring female PCs. Men can play men badly and women can play women badly too.
Quote:
As a player, I try to play the gender the PC concept suggests...or in some cases, demands. If this means playing a female (I'm male), so be it.
For some reason, this makes some of my GM's (past and present) uncomfortable. Some are so uncomfortable with the concept that they flat-out forbid opposite-gender PCs. So if they won't let me do it, I change PCs and place "the offender" in a file to be used later.
That's a reasonable way to do it. Me, I would tease the DM unmercilessly about it, but that's just me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariosto
"Is wish-fulfillment game X viable" is to me something other than whether it should be D&D. I don't find D&D "better" for being made more like RuneQuest -- or vice-versa. I don't look forward eagerly to the day when the neighborhood hamburger stand falls to McDonald's.
That's a reasonable position, but I think D&D can be fairly versatile and still remain D&D. For example, I think it's safe to say 4e is very different from 1e, 2e and 3e, but they are all still D&D to me. And since D&D is by far the industry leader among RPGs, I'd be happy to see D&D become more versatile and able to incorporate wider playstyles and accept a broader player base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by S'mon
Just that Californians tend to be particularly sensitive, including sensitive to perceived *isms.
Tempting, but I'll let that go
Quote:
Techniques - trying to remember...
Thanks for the detailed coverage. That's interesting and I'm sure more than a few people will be able to steal some stuff from there.
Quote:
Hmm, thinking about it I think I'll start using that Contacts system again in my current Willow Vale game - I've been looking for ways to open it out. Thanks Shilsen.
I'm not sure I can take credit here, but sure
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathew_Freeman
In terms of whether or not Western society is sexist - we're going to have to agree to disagree on that. If you take a look at the sites linked to earlier in the thread, you can certainly see that there is a lot of analysis of current issues, focusing on a sexism angle. I find it hard to believe that you could spend some time reading those blogs and not admit that there is a problem with sexism in society, even if we differ in terms of how much of a problem it is.
I need to stop saying this re. your posts, but (surprise, surprise) I agree.
Quote:
This isn't, per se, something I would say is blatantly sexist and a huge problem, but it is indicative of the wider attitudes that permeate gaming and D&D, and as such it is worth bringing up.
And that is my attitude in a nutshell.
__________________ shilsen is broken - Crothian (and this is why)
My Eberron Story Hour. Updated November 12. Almost at the climax!
I mean, this thread is about sexism in D&D. If sexism is caused by biology, then it shouldn't be attacked, decried, and argued away any more than eyesight and the need for oxygen.
Sexism may be caused by biology but that does not mean that is cannot be argued against or decryed. Some people feel, for instance, that women are better a caring for children than men. That is not necessary sexist per se. However, advocating forcing all women to stay at home to mind the chindren is sexist. I am not saying that you adovcate such a position. It is just an extreme example but from the not too distant past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ycore Rixle
But, alas, I think we have two different approaches here. The facts of the world as it is are important to me. If I read you correctly, they aren't to you. Perhaps, in a thread on a fantasy game, I am indeed the odd one out.
As far as I can tell, there is no scientific concensus regarding to the nature/nurture debate. I reckon the truth is a bit of both but how much is currently up in the air.
With regard to the OP, sexism in D&D, with respect to the rules I would say very little. In regards to the settings, I would agree with the OP that very few of the settings stand up to scrutily with regard to numbers of sentient species and top level predators. I cannot imagine that Elves/Eladrin could have reproduction biology resembling humans or the world would be buried under the weight of starving elves.
Other than that, it will be as sexist as the society that create it. There is so much of our daily assumption that we do not question and that will be reflected in the campaigns we create, unless someone calls us on it.
This also applies to the gamer culture in general also.
warves were made to be male-centric (over 60% of all Dwarves are male; their females rarely if ever adventure), and Gnomes were made to be the reverse though not quite so militant about it. Female Gnomes and Male Dwarves can become stronger etc. than their opposites. Elves were *supposed* to become somewhat androgynous but that just never happened in play; I find I prefer the actual result over the theory anyway.
- Crothian (and 
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
