Gaming through denial

[Celebrim]

What if the character is simply a Bishonen?

First, I don't think the discussion of Japanese sexual tropes is one we really want to have since it would certainly derail the thread.

Secondly, in my game at least, an advantage like "being universally loved by both sexes" would not be one you could claim merely by stating that of the character and declaring it in background. No player is allowed to declare tangible mechanical advantages on the basis of the character's flavor or written background. Anything you want to have as a starting that is a tangible advantage must be reflected on the character sheet. If you wanted to be so beautiful that you were universally loved by both sexes, you'd for example take the Attractive and Androgynous traits, a reasonably high charisma and probably some ranks in Diplomacy and/or Bluff. You could then declare your character was so stunningly beautiful that everyone of either sex was fascinated by them, because the mechanical effect would match the flavor you were claiming. You could claim that about yourself precisely because (and to the extent that) it would be true in game that propositions based on that claim would produce the positive fortune outcome.

You are allowed to claim any sort of flavor you want that doesn't imply any direct benefit. For example, you are allowed to claim that you are the king's son, provided you write your background in such a way that you gain no specific benefit from the relationship - for example you are a disowned, disgraced, bastard, who has been barred from court and is neither widely recognized nor widely admired. If you want tangible benefits from this relationship, you must pay for the them with the appropriate traits and feats - noble rank, wealthy, patron, etc.

In general, most DMs without background traits in their game would simply just refuse to approve any background that gave the character considerable advantage above and beyond what could be justified from their character sheet.

I've seen this sort of behavior from a player before. It sucks for everyone, because its blatant spot light stealing and the sort of players that engage in it basically want to play solo with an audience and treat the GM as being a device for self-gratification and self-validation. Any GM that doesn't concede to their demands in every situation is deemed wrong, and so play must stop until they get their way. You end up spending more time arguing about the game than playing it, and if you don't argue, then you must accept that one player in the group has the power of "Win Button" which he may use at any time to get anything wishes.

Rather than the player outright saying "I'm a man disguised as a girl and none of you know", you as DM could simply go with that reasoning unless there is reason to challenge the disguise.

There are plenty of reasons to challenge the disguise. For one thing, the rules on disguise state that you need 1d3x10 minutes to prepare one, and imply that a disguise is in fact a disguise - that is something you apply that obscures your appearance. Disrobing is implicitly equivalent to removing the disguise, particularly in the case of disguising ones gender. For another, if you allow this sort of thing to stand, then you are basically punishing anyone who spent points on being able to disguise themselves. The tacit lesson you are stating at your table is, "Although the rules I've given you to use state that there is a disguise skill that applies in these situations, you are and would be a fool to spend any resources on the ability to disguise oneself because in play I'm going to ignore that in favor of going with what I feel like, up to and including favoritism on my part in how I apply the rules."

Anyone not of the character's race, for example, might have a hard time telling his sex at a casual glance.

While this argument might well apply to an aberration like a beholder or mind flayer, if for now other reason that such races probably don't care about humanoid gender, the same argument seems silly to apply in relation to races with basically human body plans and similar gender norms, such as the fey. Indeed, if anything, fey that might willing engage in sexual activity with humanoids such as satyrs or dryads - as "small gods" of fertility - might well have an easier time determining gender than members of the character's own race.

In many real-life cases, some men just get fooled into thinking a male cross-dresser is a female...

And yet, in general in those cases, the individual in question has gone to great lengths to produce a believable disguise and has great practice in doing so and behaving and speaking like a female and probably spending more even than the usual 1d3 x 10 minutes to produce it. If the PC in question had high ranks in disguise or sufficient charisma, then their ability to create disguises which survived sustained observation might be believable.

go with that assumption until given sufficient evidence to the person's true gender... at which point, in game speak, the man succeeds on his Wisdom/Perception check to penetrate the disguise.

However, the player in question is not submitting to even this most basic concession to the rules. He is declaring by fiat that his disguise is impenetrable regardless of his ranks in disguise (or rather lack thereof) and regardless of the insight and perception abilities of the witness. He's even claiming by fiat that his disguise is impenetrable even in cases where a disguise has not be applied!

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I think that this discussion needs to reel back away from the 'disguise as a man' think, after all it sounds like a 'schtick' with no mechanical benefits and is simply just the player being weird. If that were the case and he was in my game I would go ahead with it and, based on the lack of skill would let him and others know that he can do that simply because 'she' looks and sounds alot like a 'he'.. perhaps too many steroids or a close brush with a girdle of gender changing? What-ever.. either way 'she' looks, acts, and sounds like a 'he'. no big deal until 'she' wants to be a 'she'.. and then have the in-character disbelief... as players just act as if 'she' is a 'he' all the time.. even when 'she' says she isnt...

But, like I started with.. backing away. Schrodingers Armor could be a case of different playstyles. GM 'tricked' the player by fast-forwarding and then assuming that nothing was done in the between time while the player thought there would be time to change things up. Instead of arguing the conversation should look a bit like:

GM: So you leap into the water.. but I thought you climbed the rigging in armor and are still up there?
Player: oh, I took it off earlier.
GM:, okay.. moving on..

Had the need to go diving in happen *right after* the character climbed the rigging in armor, that would change to:

GM: So you leap into the water.. but I thought you climbed the rigging in armor and are still up there?
Player: oh, I took it off earlier.
GM:, There wasn't an 'earlier'.. you are wearing your armor.. so either you jump in the water with armor or you have to take it off now.. which takes over a minute. Which one?


.. avoid the argument. If the player insists that they jump in the water without the armor, move on to the next player to see what they are doing in the minute or more it takes the PC to shuck their armor. The DM controls the pace and the PC can't accomplish anything if its not thier turn.


Then.. reeling back even more..
Perhaps this is how the player thinks is how the game is played, and this playstyle cannot be merged with the rest of the group. Either one/both sides needs to adjust their playstyle or one/both sides needs to leave the table.
Decades of gaming has taught me that most playstyle conflicts are minor.. but there are some that are best to simply walk away from. Its not that they are playing 'wrong', its just that that style of play isn't fun for you.

So, semi-unsolicited advise time.
meet with the entire group and talk about what makes the game fun for each of you.... not about how irritating this guy is. I bet you can find common ground in the fun factor. Then talk about setting up 'table rules' in order to keep it fun. Rules like 'no rules arguments in combat', 'if a rules argument lasts more than 5 minutes, either stop the session or drop the argument', 'DM doesn't pay for snacks', 'no fartknockers'...

And, because it applies to pretty much every conversation.. apply the 'four agreements' by Don Ruiz:
1: be immpecable with your word, speak with integrity and avoid gossip
2: dont take anything personally, what others say and do is a projection of thier reality.
3: dont make assumptions, have the courage to ask questions and express what you want
4: Always do your best, and understand that sometimes your best is less than what you would like it to be.. but it is still your best.

I am sorry to hear that this player is disruptive, but this is nothing any long-term gamer has experienced in one way or another. There is no-one here who has the right to tell you that however you handle this is 'wrong'...

... well, unless you slit the guys throat.. that is wrong! {at least that what my shrink says...}

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think that this discussion needs to reel back away from the 'disguise as a man' think, after all it sounds like a 'schtick' with no mechanical benefits and is simply just the player being weird. If that were the case and he was in my game I would go ahead with it and, based on the lack of skill would let him and others know that he can do that simply because 'she' looks and sounds alot like a 'he'.. perhaps too many steroids or a close brush with a girdle of gender changing? What-ever.. either way 'she' looks, acts, and sounds like a 'he'. no big deal until 'she' wants to be a 'she'.. and then have the in-character disbelief... as players just act as if 'she' is a 'he' all the time.. even when 'she' says she isnt...

As a DM, if the player of the female PC wants that character to live disguised as a man without spending the relevant game resources on it, I would only let it go if that a same PC had trouble convincing others as to her true gender.

 

[prosfilaes]

...and the way to describe such a PC within the mechanics of D&D would be to have a certain amount of skill in Disguise and/or some bonuses to such a roll from a high Charisma. Neither of which, as I recall, describes the PC.

Which doesn't necessarily describe the character. It is neither unrealistic nor out of genre to have an uncharismatic character with no real general skill in Disguise who can carry off a consistent impersonation of the other gender.

If you want to play a high-realism game, maybe it's worth stressing about. If you have the menagerie phenomenon going on and no real racism or sexism visible in your world, it seems silly to force this character to pay what amounts to an Unusual Background cost.

The whole Unseelie thing is a lot harder to deal with, but just the base idea is not something I think you need to use mechanics to describe in D&D.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It is neither unrealistic nor out of genre to have an uncharismatic character with no real general skill in Disguise who can carry off a consistent impersonation of the other gender.

With respect, I cannot agree with that statement.

Edit (had to stop typing to drive):

There is a world of difference between dressing up as someone of the opposite gender and being convincing while being dressed as someone of the opposite gender for any length of time.

 

[Elven]

Although I the "Disguise one gender as another" has a DC 30 as an example in one of the books.

That seems harsh, maybe for a bikini contest?...

And let him play a lady man, generally it shouldn't be too hard right (Mulan pulled it off right?, bet she didn't have a high Disguise skill either)
BUT he would no doubt raise suspicion, (is that dude gay?) and if he got buck naked without the DC 30 roll, then BUSTED
(you do the stupid, you make the roll)

Solution:
Call him on it,
If he is..

A) Really sincere, he will take note, and pay attention (he could have a bad memory,)
Let him know you will also take notes from now on,

B) lying, than he will know that tactic will no longer work, as you are now paying attention,

Either way if he persists in that way, tell him, "If you have not stated it in or out of game, then it doesn't count (he will need to change his habits)

But don't be to harsh on the guy, at least he's playing interesting characters, just need to curb the bad habit,

 

[N'raac]

As a player around the table (which I am not), I think I'd be wondering aloud whether the character is actually a male who believes he is a female who disguises herself as a male, as that seems to be the only way my character (assuming a positive Spot check) would still be thinking the character is male after watching he? she? IT strip down for a bath in a public setting.

To the broader issue, what we really see here (on the thread) is a lot of different game and play style options, and a lot of disagreement on the best way to proceed. Maybe the player in question should be asked to read the thread and see that his views are far from universally shared. Perhaps the group should discuss which of the many suggested approaches are appropriate for the game and playstyle they want to play.

 

[Grogg of the North]

With a 12 Charisma, the PC's total bonus is 1. It is impossible for this character to have carried off that masquerade with the group for any period of time. (We just made 3rd level). This was pointed out. In fact, the "Disguise one gender as another" has a DC 30 as an example in one of the books. You might pass it off if walking through a crowd, but not with the people living and traveling with you.

We pointed out the impossibility of the claim. Player's response? "Yes, but she's totally disguised, and you all think she's a man."

And that was the answer to every argument.

I think, for me, the biggest issue here with this is player is him telling me what my character thinks/feels. I don't know how your table runs but, at it's generally accepted in my group that if you don't roll the dice you can believe whatever you want. (If you take the roll, you have to abide by it.) And if I beat your abysmal disguise check you can't just say "No, you still think she's a man!" It's like he's trying to railroad from the wrong end of the DM screen!

And why only half a rank in disguise? It's not getting him anything.

As for his armor issues, if no one hears it then it never happened. And as a DM, I personally hate going back in time, especially in combat, to deal with stuff like that.

I don't know what you're going to do with this player but there are a lot of red flags being raised with this player.

 

[Greenfield]

As a small note: The "DC 30" I quoted , which several people have replied to, is wrong. I corrected earlier, but some apparently missed that.

The adjustment, from the table in the Disguise skill entry itself, says -2 penalty to impersonate someone of another gender.

I suspect that the DC 30 is for something like carrying it off in a public bath house or similar environment. A hard DC doesn't really make much sense with that skill, since it's normally resolved with an opposed skill check.

 

[prosfilaes]

I think, for me, the biggest issue here with this is player is him telling me what my character thinks/feels.

It seems to in the clash between two player's rights to control their characters. If someone tells you their elf barbarian is scarred and looks more like the last of the Mohicans then Legolas, then I think it's pushing the line to say your character thinks he looks like Legolas.