Comfort withcross gender characters based on your gender

[Eltab]

Also look at real life greetings, where a handshake is typically seen as manly while a hug between same-sex people who aren't family members is often seen as feminine, homosexual, or at least unmanly.

Arab diplomats greet other diplomats with a hug and a peck-on-both-cheeks. (I don't know if that applies outside the diplomatic circle.)

Cultures vary.

 

[Lanefan]

My characters overall tend to split about evenly as to gender. The luck of the dice sees my female characters surviving more often of late.

 

[D1Tremere]

My opinion is that playing as those who are different from yourself is the entire point of role playing.
If you want to play a stereotype, that is fine as well. Most people start off playing stereotypical dwarfs, elves, etc. This usually leads to them playing more nuanced versions that include culture as they become more comfortable playing them.
Gender should not be any more taboo in role playing than any other element.

 

[Hussar]

That's really not your call, is it? Players may have internal narratives as well as external ones. Maybe they'll come out, maybe they won't. And that's OK, Mr. Badwrongfun.

Well, since all we're discussing is personal preferences, then, well, it is my call because it's my personal preference. If you want to play a character where everything about that character only exists in your head, go write fiction. In a game about shared fiction, SHARING is the important part.

Well, that's a big assumption now, isn't it?



Or... you failed to pay sufficient attention. Or you are making too many assumptions.
But shidaku's bottom line on all of this, and I agree with him, is your posts on this topic read a whole lot like being very judgey about someone else's role playing as well as they way they play. And frankly, you should knock that off.

So, someone comes to the table with a character, makes zero attempt to actually display that character to the group, never once references anything about that that character, and you just shrug and say, "Good job?" Really? I thought the point of these boards was to help people become better players.

Go go Father Generic the cleric who never once mentions faith, never references background or history, never makes any attempt to portray the character at the table. Yahoo. Excellent roleplaying there.

Do I sound judgmental? Yup, I do. Because, in my judgement, the cypher character, which I've seen very, very often, is nothing but a black hole at the table. Never offers the DM any hooks for personalizing the campaign, never helps any of the other players portray their characters because, well, all that matters is the next plot point right? Roll up the plot wagon, spoon feed the players and off we go!

 

[Umbran]

So, someone comes to the table with a character, makes zero attempt to actually display that character to the group

No. Stop. Strawman alert.

Somehow, we went from (my paraphrase) "do we really need to specifically role play femininity so that others at the table are sure to always remember it" to (emphasis mine) "makes ZERO attempt to display the character to the group". Those are not the same thing. Please back off on the hyperbole and overstatement, because it is getting in the way of real discussion.

Do I sound judgmental? Yup, I do. Because, in my judgement, the cypher character, which I've seen very, very often,\

... but that nobody but you is talking about here.

We are not talking about a cypher character. So put that fear away. We are talking, specifically, about whether there's an onus to make sure everyone at the table could *never* lose track of a character's gender.

He maybe playing a character that is clearly grumpy in the mornings, has nigh-royal bearing, a tendency to get into bar fights, and has an unnatural affinity for stinky cheeses. But the stereotypical cues to signal "WOMAN!" were not present. There may be lots of roleplay going on, but not roleplay designed and intended for the purpose of making this one aspect imprinted indelibly on people's minds.

Is the difference clear to you now?

 

[Hussar]

But, Umbran, I've been pretty specific all the way along. I AM talking about someone who makes ZERO attempt to convey the gender of their character. Like I said, simply using gender specific pronouns is enough to satisfy me. Other people have turned that into, "Well, how dare you imply that someone's roleplaying isn't perfect?" Let's recap shall we:

All quotes are from me:

If your character is gender bending, then, make the effort to make sure that that comes across in your portrayal of that character. Otherwise, why bother?

It's not that it's inaccurate. It's that it's completely absent... I'm really not sure how it's arrogant to ask you to actually play the character you created instead of some cypher, Man without a Name character that is indistinguishable from the last five characters you played.

It's up to you how you want to get across the fact that your character is female. Otherwise, what's the point? What's the point of gender bending your character if you cannot even be bothered bringing that to the table?

If you want to play a nothing cypher with no indications of something that is pretty basic to anyone observing the character, that's a poor portrayal of that character. If you are completely unwilling or unable to actually show the table to the point where the table actually knows that your character is female, then, well, what was the point of making that character female? It's no different from any other element of the character.

You mean playing blank cypher characters with no actual indication at the table what your character is is considered good roleplaying to you?

if at the table, you cannot or will not convey the pertinent facts of your character to the rest of the table in any way, then, why bother?

I don't really care HOW you portray your character, just that your character is actually being portrayed.

So long as you manage to convey your character's attributes to the table, I don't really give a rat's petoot how you do it.

SO LONG AS THE TABLE IS ABLE TO RECOGNIZE PERTINENT FACTS ABOUT YOUR CHARACTER, YOUR JOB OF PORTRAYING THAT CHARACTER IS DONE.

So, since I've been pretty much consistent throughout this entire conversation, and despite that, people still insist on trying to argue with a point I'm not making.
[MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION], in your own example, where you have all these character quirks, fair enough, how is it unreasonable to ask that the player puts in the 1% of effort required to make sure that his portrayal of a female character actually registers in the awareness of the other players? Again, and I keep asking this question, why bother making a gender bending character if you're not actually going to put any effort whatsoever into that aspect? What was the point?

Again, to me, it's no different than any other aspect. If you play an elf (or whatever race you like) and it's completely absent from anything you actually do at the table and the only way it ever comes up is if someone casts a Sleep spell, then that's poor roleplaying. Painting the picture of your character into the minds of the other players is what good roleplay is all about.

 

[pemerton]

your posts on this topic read a whole lot like being very judgey about someone else's role playing as well as they way they play. And frankly, you should knock that off.

Well, since all we're discussing is personal preferences, then, well, it is my call because it's my personal preference. If you want to play a character where everything about that character only exists in your head, go write fiction. In a game about shared fiction, SHARING is the important part.

I'm not sure I agree 100% with Hussar about what counts as good roleplaying, but I do agree 100% with the idea that we can talk about what we think makes for good and bad roleplaying (politely and respectfully, of course, and perhaps generically rather than with too much pointed reference to individual's posted examples).

We're talking about a creative endeavour - the collective creation of shared fiction - and so criticism, both of technique and of product, seems fair to me.

 

[Riley37]

Again, to me, it's no different than any other aspect. If you play an elf (or whatever race you like) and it's completely absent from anything you actually do at the table and the only way it ever comes up is if someone casts a Sleep spell, then that's poor roleplaying. Painting the picture of your character into the minds of the other players is what good roleplay is all about.

Add me to the list of people with deep disagreement.

If the BBEG makes his big speech, and every other player at the table can guess what my character will say in response, then I have played a consistent *personality*. If, at the same time, each player draws a significantly different *illustration* of my character, though, I am 100% fine with that outcome. "But you never established via role-play that Boris has green eyes!" Yeah, live with it, buddy.

Let's say we've been playing at the same table for a year, and you've noticed these things: My character habitually defends the helpless, cures the sick and heals the injured, and sometimes accepts the hospitality of a commoner whom my character has rescued or healed. Whenever we're at a tavern, someone says "Hey, that's Boris the Green! I know a song about you!", and I say "Yeah, I'll have a drink and sing along". I challenge foes before striking, offer the enemy a chance to surrender, never lie, and only cast Zone of Truth when everyone in the AoE consents (and agrees to answer each other's questions). When I cast Find Steed, I got something which looks more like an animated rough-hewn sawhorse, than like a stallion or mare. I hunt for game when the party's on the road, and I make my own javelins and arrows with woodcrafting tools (though I buy the metal points). You can reasonably infer that I'm playing a Paladin with the Oath of Ancients and the Folk Hero background.

If you consider this a cypher then (shrug) too bad for you; it's good enough for many DMs and many players.

If you have no idea what anatomy is under Boris's chainmail, nor whether Boris would bear children or sire children, then I have played an *adventurer*, not a gender stereotype.

If you assume that English is the DM's first language, that's on you; no one owes you an obligation to speak with enough of an accent that you can tell what their first language was. Likewise, if you assume that Common is Boris's first language, that's also on you; I don't owe you an obligation to have Boris speak with an accent from Draconic or Elvish or Infernal, and if you're baffled by a non-human whose behavior falls within the range of behavior you expect from humans, then that's yet again your problem, not mine.

 

[ccs]

Add me to the list of people with deep disagreement.

If the BBEG makes his big speech, and every other player at the table can guess what my character will say in response, then I have played a consistent *personality*. If, at the same time, each player draws a significantly different *illustration* of my character, though, I am 100% fine with that outcome. "But you never established via role-play that Boris has green eyes!" Yeah, live with it, buddy.

Let's say we've been playing at the same table for a year, and you've noticed these things: My character habitually defends the helpless, cures the sick and heals the injured, and sometimes accepts the hospitality of a commoner whom my character has rescued or healed. Whenever we're at a tavern, someone says "Hey, that's Boris the Green! I know a song about you!", and I say "Yeah, I'll have a drink and sing along". I challenge foes before striking, offer the enemy a chance to surrender, never lie, and only cast Zone of Truth when everyone in the AoE consents (and agrees to answer each other's questions). When I cast Find Steed, I got something which looks more like an animated rough-hewn sawhorse, than like a stallion or mare. I hunt for game when the party's on the road, and I make my own javelins and arrows with woodcrafting tools (though I buy the metal points). You can reasonably infer that I'm playing a Paladin with the Oath of Ancients and the Folk Hero background.

If you consider this a cypher then (shrug) too bad for you; it's good enough for many DMs and many players.

If you have no idea what anatomy is under Boris's chainmail, nor whether Boris would bear children or sire children, then I have played an *adventurer*, not a gender stereotype.

If you assume that English is the DM's first language, that's on you; no one owes you an obligation to speak with enough of an accent that you can tell what their first language was. Likewise, if you assume that Common is Boris's first language, that's also on you; I don't owe you an obligation to have Boris speak with an accent from Draconic or Elvish or Infernal, and if you're baffled by a non-human whose behavior falls within the range of behavior you expect from humans, then that's yet again your problem, not mine.

If after a year of play I, the player, have no idea that Boris the Green is an elf or what sex/gender they are then you've failed.
Unless you were intentionally trying to conceal these facts not just from the characters, but also from the players....

 

[Riley37]

If after a year of play I, the player, have no idea that Boris the Green is an elf or what sex/gender they are then you've failed.

I have failed at your goals, and at Hussar's goals. I have not failed at my goals.

I'm fine with a player saying "My character looks at Boris. What do I see?" Race should be obvious. Sex, with that race and heavy armor, not so obvious.*

Hussar wants to know (and be reminded as needed) my character's race and gender, without looking, just from my character's words and decisions. That's not what I want. Fortunately, we're not at the same table!

* The character sheet has blank fields for SKIN EYES HAIR. Considering Boris's race, I answered NO YES NO, respectively; Boris has eyes, but scales are neither hair nor skin.