Comfort withcross gender characters based on your gender

[billd91]

Now, honestly, this is an interesting question. By salient, I'd generally default to stuff that people would pretty much automatically know about you within 10 minutes of meeting you. So, yes, gender (although that can depend on the species of the character, it really might not be apparent, or heck, even exist - my Star Frontiers Dralazite (think giant sentient amoebas), is often pretty apparent when you meet someone. It should certainly be something that the other characters in the group knows (again, there are specific circumstances where this might not be true such as hiding your gender for some reason).

So, yeah, dropping the odd hint once in a while isn't too much to ask is it?

Or, better yet, see @ MechaPilot's excellent answer to the question as well.

I'm going to continue to hit on this issue for a while - but again - salient to whom? And what assumptions are being made at the table?
Based on your response to Umbran back in post #88 - apparently the gender of the character is only salient to you if different from the apparent gender of the player.

Like I said, I wasn't going to get into specific examples because everyone want's to start playing silly buggers trap games. And, since all your characters at your table are not gender bending, WHO CARES? You look at the player and you know that the player and the character are the same gender. AGAIN JOB DONE.

But the job being done, as you said, is based on a few assumptions - 1) That the player isn't playing cross gender and 2) that you can correctly guess the gender identity of the other player.

In short, you're basically assuming that the job of portraying the gender of the character is completed by simply being a player who is that gender. that seems contrary to the goal of pushing players to role play the salient aspects of their character as it's based on an assumption based on the nature of the player, not the role they play.


Don't get me too wrong here - you can't really hold the other players at the table accountable for not knowing your PC is deathly afraid of spiders if you've never role played them as deathly afraid of spiders. I get that. But, and getting back to some of the other arguments here, implying that someone isn't playing a character feminine enough or black enough or Japanese enough or dwarven enough or good enough or pious enough is really walking over some potentially sensitive territory that may underscore your own biases more than the player you'd be accusing of failing to role play their salient characteristics.

 

[Riley37]

Let me turn the question around a bit. Is it reasonable to ask why someone is choosing to play something? If you are choosing to play a different gender, why? This is a conscious choice that you are making. You have deliberately chosen this. So, again, why? And the question applies to every single choice you made when creating this character. If you're a drink loving pyromaniac elf, ok, great. Why? What are you trying to do at the table?

Let me turn the question around even further. If you are choosing to play a character with the same gender you have (in the sense of anatomy, and/or in the sense of social role), why? This is a conscious choice that you are making. You have deliberately chosen this. So, again, why?

If you are choosing to play a character with a different name than you the player, why? This is a conscious choice that you are making. You have deliberately chosen this. So, again, why?

You say that the question applies to every single choice one makes when creating a character. Are you holding gender to the *same standard of intention* - no more, and no less - as background, alignment, name, height, weight, bonds, flaws, ideals, and color of skin, eyes and hair?

If I choose to play a PC with a class other than mine - say, perhaps, a fighter (I am not, IRL, proficient with all martial weapons) - then this is a conscious choice that I are making. I have deliberately chosen this. Do you hold that choice to the same standard of scrutiny? If, after several sessions of play, someone thinks that I'm playing a Ranger, because we started at level 1 and my PC's personality strikes her as Aragorn-ish, then are either of us doing D&D wrong?

 

[Riley37]

I keep coming back to the same basic question. What's the point of playing X if you never actually play X at the table?

What's the point of choosing a Bond or Flaw on session 1, which doesn't emerge in play until session 11 or 23?

For over a year I played a half-elf bard who was not, anatomically, binary male nor female, going by PHB p. 121. Dexter never objected to people using "he"; Dexter was used to humans using that pronoun for anyone whose chest didn't bulge, and Dexter wasn't gonna argue the pronoun usage of any language other than Elvish. The topic didn't emerge during play, and neither did the color of Dexter's eyes, which is presumably obvious to everyone in the PC party, but only the player and DM had seen the gender and the eye color listed on the character sheet. The team's mission was stopping the cult of Tiamat, and we played with an emphasis on the team's mission.

Until about a year later, when an NPC druid said something which someone noticed, and one of the players *flipped out*. His character demanded "Dexter, are you a man or a woman?" to which Dexter responded "No, I am a true child of Corellon". That player left the group, a few sessions later.

That same player had mentioned that his PC was married. The wife never appeared in the story; the DM had no name or story for her; I dunno if the player had chosen a name for this wife NPC.

Was it an accident, that someone felt so strongly about gender, rather than about Dexter's eye color? Or are some of the fields on a character sheet more emotional for some people, than for others?

 

[Caliban]

I've had several characters where I picked a gender and it had zero impact on the game because it just didn't come up, one way or the other. It only mattered to me and my personal conception of the character.

I've had others where it was an integral part of their personality and they actively played up various gender stereotypes (mainly dwarves and barbarians).

I've had a gay paladin who wrote letters home to his husband between sessions.

I've had a pansexual sorcerer who would (politely) hit on anything with a pulse.

I've had a somewhat prim and proper female noble who was very ladylike and the model of decorum.

I haven't created any lesbian or transgendered characters because it's not something I feel I can portray accurately.

Gender identity just another character attribute that may or may not come up in play. Doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[Sunseeker]

I've had a gay paladin who wrote letters home to his husband between sessions.

Okay, now I'm suuuuuper curious, did you actually write these letters between sessions?

 

[Caliban]

Okay, now I'm suuuuuper curious, did you actually write these letters between sessions?

I wrote the first one, as part of the background of the character. I'm not quite dedicated enough to keep it up every session, but the character himself did write home frequently.

 

[Hussar]

I'm going to continue to hit on this issue for a while - but again - salient to whom? And what assumptions are being made at the table?
Based on your response to Umbran back in post #88 - apparently the gender of the character is only salient to you if different from the apparent gender of the player.

But the job being done, as you said, is based on a few assumptions - 1) That the player isn't playing cross gender and 2) that you can correctly guess the gender identity of the other player.

Well, really? You've played with people that you actually didn't know what gender they were?

In short, you're basically assuming that the job of portraying the gender of the character is completed by simply being a player who is that gender. that seems contrary to the goal of pushing players to role play the salient aspects of their character as it's based on an assumption based on the nature of the player, not the role they play.

Don't get me too wrong here - you can't really hold the other players at the table accountable for not knowing your PC is deathly afraid of spiders if you've never role played them as deathly afraid of spiders. I get that. But, and getting back to some of the other arguments here, implying that someone isn't playing a character feminine enough or black enough or Japanese enough or dwarven enough or good enough or pious enough is really walking over some potentially sensitive territory that may underscore your own biases more than the player you'd be accusing of failing to role play their salient characteristics.

It's not a case of "enough". It's a case of "at all". If you are playing cross genders, and it never, ever comes up, well, why bother? Like I said, simply using a bloody gender pronoun once in a while is "enough".

Let me turn the question around even further. If you are choosing to play a character with the same gender you have (in the sense of anatomy, and/or in the sense of social role), why? This is a conscious choice that you are making. You have deliberately chosen this. So, again, why?

If you are choosing to play a character with a different name than you the player, why? This is a conscious choice that you are making. You have deliberately chosen this. So, again, why?

You say that the question applies to every single choice one makes when creating a character. Are you holding gender to the *same standard of intention* - no more, and no less - as background, alignment, name, height, weight, bonds, flaws, ideals, and color of skin, eyes and hair?

If I choose to play a PC with a class other than mine - say, perhaps, a fighter (I am not, IRL, proficient with all martial weapons) - then this is a conscious choice that I are making. I have deliberately chosen this. Do you hold that choice to the same standard of scrutiny? If, after several sessions of play, someone thinks that I'm playing a Ranger, because we started at level 1 and my PC's personality strikes her as Aragorn-ish, then are either of us doing D&D wrong?

Yes, absolutely. Every single choice you make when creating a character should be held to the same standard. Although, to be fair, gross physical characteristics like eye color might be a bit harder to convey. As far as the example though, well, that's a bit trickier since I'm not a big fan of the idea that classes actually exist in the game world, so, "Are you a fighter or a ranger" isn't really the important question, is it?

What's the point of choosing a Bond or Flaw on session 1, which doesn't emerge in play until session 11 or 23?

For over a year I played a half-elf bard who was not, anatomically, binary male nor female, going by PHB p. 121. Dexter never objected to people using "he"; Dexter was used to humans using that pronoun for anyone whose chest didn't bulge, and Dexter wasn't gonna argue the pronoun usage of any language other than Elvish. The topic didn't emerge during play, and neither did the color of Dexter's eyes, which is presumably obvious to everyone in the PC party, but only the player and DM had seen the gender and the eye color listed on the character sheet. The team's mission was stopping the cult of Tiamat, and we played with an emphasis on the team's mission.

Until about a year later, when an NPC druid said something which someone noticed, and one of the players *flipped out*. His character demanded "Dexter, are you a man or a woman?" to which Dexter responded "No, I am a true child of Corellon". That player left the group, a few sessions later.

That same player had mentioned that his PC was married. The wife never appeared in the story; the DM had no name or story for her; I dunno if the player had chosen a name for this wife NPC.

Was it an accident, that someone felt so strongly about gender, rather than about Dexter's eye color? Or are some of the fields on a character sheet more emotional for some people, than for others?

Wow, that's brutal. And, frankly, probably for the best.

OTOH, the fact that a character is more or less genderless is something that you'd think that 4 or 5 people in close, virtually every day contact with should pick up on. The fact that no one at the table actually realized this until a year into the campaign means that the player didn't do a very good job of portraying that character to the table. It's kinda like Varsuvius from OOTS. It's played as a running gag that the elf's gender is unknown, but, that's the point. Everyone recognizes that V's gender is unknown because it's been pointed out more than a few times. The joke would fall rather flat if, after a thousand strips, suddenly Roy turns to V and says, "What do you mean? Aren't you a man/woman?"

 

[Sunseeker]

Well, really? You've played with people that you actually didn't know what gender they were?

One of the worst players I ever played with was intersex. Though their sex and their bad playing had little to do with each other (as far as I could tell). However, the person in question looked ostensibly female (not like SUPER female, but kinda female) but identifies as male now. They didn't at the time, and their behavior wasn't any particular clue as to them preferring to female pronouns or male ones. So I stuck to calling them their name "Saber", yes that was their IRL name, not their character name.

It's 2018. Gender is a lot more fluid than it used to be. Sure, there are obvious examples (one guy we played with, Zach, who is the definition of a hyper-masculine alpha-male) but, especially in a hobby that is often comprised of people who are social outcasts, we're more likely to find people who are not gender-binary. It's probably best not to assume someone's gender, and by extension, apply the same reasoning to characters.

 

[ccs]

It's not a case of "enough". It's a case of "at all". If you are playing cross genders, and it never, ever comes up, well, why bother? Like I said, simply using a bloody gender pronoun once in a while is "enough".

Just checking....
You do realize that the people you're arguing against either just don't get that, or don't care what you're saying, (possibly both) right?

Ok, now back to beating on the poor dead equine.

 

[Thomas Bowman]

If it is based on your gender it is not cross-gender. Cross gender would be if a male plays a female character or a female plays a male character.