Comfort withcross gender characters based on your gender

[Riley37]

There was no "Ideological Purity" requirement then being shoved done people's throats.

Please, tell me more about the time when no one presented inclusion as a moral, ideological mandate. You must be referring to a time before MLK's speeches; a time before one USA legislator asked another ""have you no sense of decency?" - hey, that was way before Gygax wrote D&D!

You'll find people are more comfortable swallowing things at their own pace, rather when they are being force fed it.

As a literal statement, that is true. On another hand, sometimes I prioritize the comfort of the excluded group, over the comfort of the group which is not ready to include them. Rosa Parks force-fed an uncomfortable conflict to that bus driver and the bus company; was she wrong?

Or because I enjoy playing elves like the stuck up egotistical jackholes they are, and no one does egotistical as well as an elf

Hugo Weaving set a very high bar, for portraying elven arrogance. I am not up to the challenge of playing any other race with deeper arrogance than Weaving's Elrond. Though... can you imagine him playing a Tiefling and going full Lucifer, as in Paradise Lost's Lucifer? He might even exceed his performance as Elrond. But I digress.

Vaarsuvius' and Inkyrius' children are adopted.

Ah, clever, so they could both have the same anatomy, or no relevant anatomy, so far as that goes. Thanks!

 

[Riley37]

And, let's be fair, if we're going to have a player race, giving that race relatable genders is a pretty easy way to go. It might be a lot more difficult to insist that warforged have no genders and then expect everyone playing one to be groovy with being called "it".

That would indeed be difficult.

Third option: "Your creator may have assigned a gender. This affects your voice, and possibly some details of your design, such as torso shape and proportions. If your creator didn't assign a gender, during your construction, consider whether you have subsequently chosen a gender, when living among humanoids (as imitation or perhaps for their comfort), or whether you get by without one. Do you care whether people refer to you as he, she or it?"

Fourth option... I can't think of one off-hand, but I sure didn't stop at the dilemma of "gender mandatory or gender prohibited?", it took me a minute to write out a third option, so perhaps there's also a fourth.

 

[Thomas Bowman]

No it isn't really clear. I took uncomfortable to mean you don't like other people doing it; indifferent to mean you don't mind other people doing it, but you don't really do it much yourself (or it is okay except for certain behaviours), and comfortable to mean it is something you do yourself, or you have no objections to others doing.

So you need two DM's one to play all the female characters who is female, and another to play all the male characters who is male. Has anyone ever played in a game where there was two DM's?

 

[evileeyore]

Please, tell me more about the time when no one presented inclusion as a moral, ideological mandate. You must be referring to a time before MLK's speeches; a time before one USA legislator asked another ""have you no sense of decency?" - hey, that was way before Gygax wrote D&D!

You know what I'm talking about. And I said Ideological Purity, not Mandated Inclusivity for reason.

(Though I'm just as against mandated inclusivity)

As a literal statement, that is true. On another hand, sometimes I prioritize the comfort of the excluded group, over the comfort of the group which is not ready to include them. Rosa Parks force-fed an uncomfortable conflict to that bus driver and the bus company; was she wrong?

No. Likewise I've played Characters that have made people uncomfortable at the table, but that's more on me being an arse than being an activist.

Hugo Weaving set a very high bar, for portraying elven arrogance. I am not up to the challenge of playing any other race with deeper arrogance than Weaving's Elrond. Though... can you imagine him playing a Tiefling and going full Lucifer, as in Paradise Lost's Lucifer? He might even exceed his performance as Elrond. But I digress.

Weaving's Elrond is the high bar I strive for with my hoity-toity elves. but for Lucifer? I'd have to channel Tim Curry in Legend.

No argument can sway me.

Ah, clever, so they could both have the same anatomy, or no relevant anatomy, so far as that goes. Thanks!

No worries. it's my favorite character so it's to remember the details.

Has anyone ever played in a game where there was two DM's?
Yes, but in both instances they were the same sex (both were in Vampire games, one a set of guys (brothers) and the other a pair of women).


However... I have been in LARPs were the different gender roles were handled by the 'proper' sexes for that role (NPCwise). It does make imagining the scene a bit easier.
I've also been in LARPs were the roles were all played by the same couple of men, and they did a fine job with multiple costume changes. I've also run LARPs where I've had to represent female characters, and that was less successful as I refused to shave.

 

[Bagpuss]

So you need two DM's one to play all the female characters who is female, and another to play all the male characters who is male.

Not by my definition. All of my definitions allowed for the GM to do it if you read it carefully, just they didn't like other people doing it.

Has anyone ever played in a game where there was two DM's?

Yes. Star Trek which I think was a group of about 10 players, one GM would handle the away mission crew, while the other dealt with the ship board stuff.

On a number of occasions I've seen friends that weren't actively a PC be used to play an NPC for the GM. This was when we played at University, the games club took over the whole floor of a building, using all the classrooms, you would get people that were between games popping in to watch (or get roped into being NPCs).

 

[Riley37]

You know what I'm talking about. And I said Ideological Purity, not Mandated Inclusivity for reason.

I am serious and literal, in that I am not aware of any year or decade, in the 20th century, in which there was less controversy than now, over who gets included or excluded, and who makes those decisions. The United Nations approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Has anyone written any document, ever since then, which exceeded the preachiness and ideological purism of the Declaration?

The people who ran the final stages of the eradication of smallpox, had no qualms about forcing their agenda down anyone's throat. Everyone's throat; their goal was *every living human*. I'm not saying they were *wrong*, mind you, but today's World Health Organization is a passel of meek, mild-mannered moderates compared the zealotry of Viktor Zhdanov, in the fifteen or twenty years before Gygax wrote D&D.

If I understand correctly, I do know what you're talking about; you're talking about ideology-free "good old days"; and I don't believe that they ever happened, not during the 20th century, not in reality. Sure, you could cue up an old episode of "Happy Days", and *pretend*. That wacky, zany episode about who gets a spot in the bomb shelter, and who doesn't (episode 16, "Be the First on Your Block") was funny in 1974; it would not have been so funny in 1952, if "Happy Days" had been a *contemporary* sit-com, nor in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Has anyone ever played in a game where there was two DM's?

I've co-DMed, at game conventions. Usually a pair. I was once on a three-DM team for a particularly complicated story.

 

[Thomas Bowman]

Not by my definition. All of my definitions allowed for the GM to do it if you read it carefully, just they didn't like other people doing it.



Yes. Star Trek which I think was a group of about 10 players, one GM would handle the away mission crew, while the other dealt with the ship board stuff.

On a number of occasions I've seen friends that weren't actively a PC be used to play an NPC for the GM. This was when we played at University, the games club took over the whole floor of a building, using all the classrooms, you would get people that were between games popping in to watch (or get roped into being NPCs).

I've played more than one character at a time, this allows for larger player groups, this is helpful when playing a game with one or two players, not enough to make a balanced party if there are only two player characters each played by one person. If one person is playing multiple characters, some of those characters are going to be female. Social situations are basically the interlude between adventures. I prefer personal interactions in the real world, rather than as playing fictional characters

 

[Thomas Bowman]

I am serious and literal, in that I am not aware of any year or decade, in the 20th century, in which there was less controversy than now, over who gets included or excluded, and who makes those decisions. The United Nations approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Has anyone written any document, ever since then, which exceeded the preachiness and ideological purism of the Declaration?

The people who ran the final stages of the eradication of smallpox, had no qualms about forcing their agenda down anyone's throat. Everyone's throat; their goal was *every living human*. I'm not saying they were *wrong*, mind you, but today's World Health Organization is a passel of meek, mild-mannered moderates compared the zealotry of Viktor Zhdanov, in the fifteen or twenty years before Gygax wrote D&D.

If I understand correctly, I do know what you're talking about; you're talking about ideology-free "good old days"; and I don't believe that they ever happened, not during the 20th century, not in reality. Sure, you could cue up an old episode of "Happy Days", and *pretend*. That wacky, zany episode about who gets a spot in the bomb shelter, and who doesn't (episode 16, "Be the First on Your Block") was funny in 1974; it would not have been so funny in 1952, if "Happy Days" had been a *contemporary* sit-com, nor in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis.



I've co-DMed, at game conventions. Usually a pair. I was once on a three-DM team for a particularly complicated story.

Generally I play D&D to get away from real world politics, not delve into it.
It is easier to suspend my disbelieve when dealing with imaginary characters. I don't expect players to put on wizard robes or to wear armor at the gaming table, I prefer to use my imagination that to see things and people in costumes with props. My imagination has better costumes and special effects that whatever a player may bring to the gaming table. I don't much like miniatures on maps either. I like to imagine a bunch of characters moving through a dungeon corridor, that to move pieces on a map.

 

[Sunseeker]

I've co-DMed, at game conventions. Usually a pair. I was once on a three-DM team for a particularly complicated story.

I almost universally appoint an "assistant DM" though usually someone self-selects. They're responsible for bringing extra materials, helping new people, helping with "crowd control" and also having a firm grasp of the rules.

I'm more of a storyteller DM. I'm less concerned with what the rules say can or can't happen, and more interested in what would be awesome. But not everyone is into that in D&D, so I usually pick a rules-lawyery type to help keep me on track.

 

[aramis erak]

I think playing alien races, century old vampires, sexless droids and the like helps a bit, compared to that playing a gender that you've spent all your life around should be pretty straight forward.

Also a lot of people GM where you are required to play the opposite gender a lot of the time, so why should it be an issue when you switch to playing a PC?

I do wonder how people uncomfortable with cross gender character handle opposite gender NPCs? If you don't have an issue with them why with a PC?

I'm uncomfortable doing it as a GM, even. I do it because it's required for verisimilitude, not because I enjoy it. Since I don't enjoy cross-gender and/or homosexual characters, I much prefer to play straight male PC's.

I play elves because I can empathize with the eco-guerrilla and socialist attitudes typically attributed to them, and for the weapon proficiencies.

I'm uncomfortable playing D&D halflings, because I don't grok their cultures as provided in FR, Greyhawk, Council of Worms, or Mystara... but I do kinda grok Kender and the Halflings of Dark Sun. The halflings of WFRP1 I can do comfortably... because they're better written.

And, as [MENTION=1768]evileeyore[/MENTION] notes, the sociopolitical climate is quite different now than when I was a kid.