Does your game pass the Bechdel Test?

[Kaodi]

This video was my introduction to the Bechdel test:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH8JuizIXw8&feature=plcp]The Oscars and The Bechdel Test - YouTube[/ame]

I would argue that an " Out of Character " test is completely irrelevant to the meaning of the Bechdel test. The " In Character " test could be satisfied by a female player character and a female non-player character. I do not think the encounter has to exclude male characters, but they should perhaps be secondary participants in the conversation.

There are other tests you could perform that would be relevant to role-playing games though, like " Is a female player character ever the central player in a plot arc? " , or in groups with all male players and characters, " Is a female non-player character ever the driving force in a plot arc? "

 

[Deset Gled]

Moreover, I think this particular requirement misses the point of the original test - the original test is largely to see whether your female characters are there for purposes other than being in romantic relationships with your male characters.

The purpose of the test is not based around romance; it has nothing to do with sexuality, and everything to do with gender. The point of the Bechdel test is that the female character must have some purpose not defined by a male. In fact, it is possible to pass the standard Bechdel test by talking about relationships or romance as long as the relationship doesn't include a man.

Also I think you've missed the point of the test in your translation of it to gaming. I would keep it just the same as the film version: do you have two female characters talking to each other about something other than a man? Your version simplisitically tests for whether you have scenes without men present. That's not really the point. The talking bit is important -- that's how we get to know the female characters and find out whether they have any goals and concerns that don't revolve around the men in their life.

I disagree with that my version for Criteria A misses the point of the test, but after consideration I will agree that it goes a bit to far.

IMO, the original test is based on talking because, in a movie, talking is what stops the female from being an extra. For purposes of most stories, union roles, and accreditation, having a speaking roll is the line in the sand that determines if the actor meets the criteria of actually being a character. The fact that the female must be a true character is also why many variants of the Bechdel test require the female to be named. Obviously, there is potential for a mute character or other oddity, but those cases are outliers that are harder to cover with a general rule.

Also IMO, participating in an encounter is what defines a character in an RPG. A DM can describe people being present in a situation, but if the players don't interact with the people they are merely background. The interaction of the encounter is what elevates a person to being an actual NPC. Using talking as a requirement for a character in an RPG also doesn't make sense because, IME, it is not uncommon for combat to not involve any (in character) talking. It may be worth clarifying that an encounter does not have to be a combat. A social encounter involving a simple discussion, a skill challenge, or other type of interaction would count.

So, that's why I based the in character criteria off of an encounter rather than talking. However, I will openly admit that I went overboard by excluding men from the encounter altogether. After all, men are allowed to be involved in a movie scene that passes the Bechdel test, they just aren't supposed to directly be part of the conversation at hand. It is the reliance of the encounter on a male in some way that should be cause of failure, not the mere presence of a male.

That being said, I'm not sure the best way to word the rule so that it allows for a male presence, but excludes an active role. Would it be better to say the females "must resolve an action through a die role that doesn't include a male"? That allows males to be present, but forces the direct interaction to be between the females. It also shoehorns the test into only encounters that can be resolved through roll playing and not role playing, which may or may not be a bad thing. It also allows the encounter to be forced by a male (e.g. two females are forced to fight to the death by a male warlord), which I don't like. Any ideas?

 

[Lanefan]

Over the long run my games generally pass except for A.4 (which I suspect is simply badly-worded).

Right now:

Party 1:
- characters pass - four current female characters (two of whom want to kill each other) plus one more female character who *did* kill another party member and ended up leaving because of it.
- players fail - this one's a rarity for me: an all-male group.

Party 2:
- characters pass - it's a massive party right now with half a dozen female characters who interact with each other just like they do with the rest of the party
- players pass - of seven players, three are female; and friends IRL.

As for the game I'm currently a player in:

- characters pass - three female characters, two of whom are romantically involved with each other while the third - mine - recently underwent a complete alignment change and is certainly not the Elf she used to be (though she's still only marginally sane).
- players pass - of six players, three are female; and friends IRL.

In all of the above under "players" I've ignored the DM.

Lanefan

 

[Dordledum]

Run the test slightly backwards: Do you have female characters in your game, and do they ever have conversations that *are* specifically about men, or romantic relationships at all?

yes, and yes. Although it wasn't about a romantic relationship, but pure lust. Our party Barbarian is a hunk, but sadly not interested in the most beautiful women alive. He prefers ugly wenches.

 

[Jhaelen]

If you want to accuse me - as a screenwriter - of creating sexist content, I can accept that.

Is the purpose of this test to accuse anyone of anything? I didn't have that impression.

Also, isn't it possible to reverse the test? E.g. one of my female players also used to DM a campaign with all-female players. I'd guess this group would have had trouble to pass a 'reversed Bechdel test'.

 

[Desdichado]

The purpose of the test is not based around romance; it has nothing to do with sexuality, and everything to do with gender. The point of the Bechdel test is that the female character must have some purpose not defined by a male. In fact, it is possible to pass the standard Bechdel test by talking about relationships or romance as long as the relationship doesn't include a man.

In which case, that just makes the whole endeavor even more arbitrary and pointless than it already was.

 

[Umbran]

The purpose of the test is not based around romance; it has nothing to do with sexuality, and everything to do with gender.

*shrug*. The discussions I've seen of it have focused on the issue of female characters defined by their romantic relationships to males - when a film has the requisite female characters, but fails the discussion-topic part of the test, in American cinema, almost invariably there's a romantic relationship involved.

I've seen criticism of the test when considering films centered on parent/child relationships, largely because those films are *supposed* to be discussing how people come to define each other.

The point of the Bechdel test is that the female character must have some purpose not defined by a male.

Fair enough. Though I think you'll find the number of American movies for which that definition is not based at least in part in romantic or sexual issues to be terribly small.

It is the reliance of the encounter on a male in some way that should be cause of failure, not the mere presence of a male.

I'd extend that to reliance of the encounter on a male PC. If there are two female PCs, and they kill orcs, and the orcs happen to be male, the scene fails the test, and that seems wrong.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I try to take the BSG approach on gender and be very gender-neutral in my NPCs and plotlines. In-game, most of my campaigns will not have any trouble passing the test. In RL I have only one female player, but that's out of three, so not a real big sample size.

 

[the Jester]

The real problem with applying it to gaming is that in most games, every encounter involves every player. So the whole "no men allowed" thing fails.

What I do see as a fair way to apply it to gaming is just like you would to a tv show: do two female characters (pc or npc) appear and have a conversation about something other than a man?

 

[Leatherhead]

Heh, My entire campaign world fails this test if A.4.b. means you can never have an asexual or androgynous spirit in the same encounter. Oh well, such are the pitfalls of having a metaphysical world integrated with a physical one.

Of course, that just makes me wonder about the original test. Even a conversation about politics or religion would rule against it, and I am almost entirely sure that isn't the intent.