Sexism in D&D and on ENWorld (now with SOLUTIONS!)

[Lanefan]

A couple of pebbles to lob into the pond here...

1. For thems as have been posting in here, in your own games, how often do players run PCs not of their own gender? And what results do you get?

Or do you as DM even allow such? (in a thread here a few months back, a surprising number of DMs flatly and shockingly stated that such was banned in their games...a serious eye-opener, to be sure)

The game I currently play in has 3 male players and 2 female (was 3, and the lapsed player's PC is still in the party); yet the in-party gender ration is M-3/F-8. (we usually run 2 PCs each, if you're wondering at the math there...)

2. A long time ago, we made some changes to our 1e-based game rules to make it less sexist - to a point:
:::Human stat adjustments due to gender went out the window.
::warves were made to be male-centric (over 60% of all Dwarves are male; their females rarely if ever adventure), and Gnomes were made to be the reverse though not quite so militant about it. Female Gnomes and Male Dwarves can become stronger etc. than their opposites. Elves were *supposed* to become somewhat androgynous but that just never happened in play; I find I prefer the actual result over the theory anyway.
:::When I redid the pantheons to a "universal" system, male-female became the third great division, along with good-evil and law-chaos (and rated as more important than law-chaos); thus, by definition, gender equality at the divine level across all alignments becomes a pure and simple fact.
:::Cavaliers were charged with defense of the (supposedly-weaker) opposite gender - leading to loads of fun when there's a Cavalier of each gender in the party; as has happened once or twice.

3. While the selection of plastic female minis doesn't impress, I've noticed more and more really good female metal minis coming out of late; so all is not lost on that front.

Lanefan

 

[Ycore Rixle]

A couple of pebbles to lob into the pond here...

1. For thems as have been posting in here, in your own games, how often do players run PCs not of their own gender? And what results do you get?

I'd say about 10-20% of the time. Results have been normal, that is, it really hasn't made a difference one way or the other on the campaign. We've also had a gay plotline back in a NYC campaign that was super. But that's the beauty of D&D again: the campaign can change to suit the group.

 

[Ariosto]

I can see selection pressures for gender (psychological) differences in synergy with sexual (physical) ones. It's difficult to separate socialization because human societies so far have been shaped by the same factors.

Basically, I have not found very much personal use for stereotypes. I'm not so much an extrovert as typically to deal with statistically representative samples. My really important relationships are with individuals, and I'm not surprised that they tend to be "square pegs" as much as me!

There are some sex-mapped trends that I have found helpful, especially in inter-sex dealings. Finding out a hard way that someone really is "like other guys / gals" makes an impression. There's a middle ground between ignoring such things and making too much of them.

In art (and for this purpose I include RPGs), contrast is an important element. There is no vision in its absence, but too few shades of gray can deprive a work of richness. What makes player-characters notable?

 

[pawsplay]

I'd rather deal with sexism than not deal with it. If I were the D"&D brand manager, I would write the core rulebook from the standpoint of complete egalitarianism. I would make sure that genders were roughly equally represented in examples and that the specific examples did not skew in a certain direction (such as all people dying being female or whatever). I'd also make sure that my first set of miniatures intended for D&D PCs include at least one human female, preferably two (one with sword, one unarmored with dagger). I'd look for an attractive but respectful mix of art, and avoid outright cheesecake that defies any plausible explanation as being part of the game, e.g. non-functional "female" armor. A little cleavage is not, in my mind, a bad thing, with the understanding that women should be represented in a variety of ways and men should be represented in a similar fashion. For instance, a "rogue" in a somewhat fetishy corset is not out of place next to a male rogue in a loose tunic and tight pants, but a female "paladin" in a corset should not be standing next to a male paladin in functional armor.

In campaign settings, I would make gender roles an explicit part of how each and every culture and region is described. My own preference for classical fantasy worlds is a more medievally feel. Women adventurers are exceptional, but my assumption is that all adventurers are exceptional. In such a setting, farmers farm, knights collect taxes, men get conscripted, and women bear and raise children, but adventurers, being exceptional individuals, do not necessarily fit the everyday pattern. I think giving each culture its own way of dealing with gender highlights and illuminates the issues in an informative and entertaining fashion. In some cultures, women may be virtually property, in others they are deferential to men but equally valued, and in other cases, may be the dominant force in society. I think nonhuman races are an opportunity to go wild. Whatever dwarven men think of dwarven women, I am certain it little resembles anything in human history.

In non-traditional settings, whether picaresques like Talislanta and Glorantha or romantic fantasy like Blue Rose or whatever, I think the selection should be made according to personal, artistic, and marketing reasons. A completely egalitarian D&D campaign setting makes a lot of sense. However, I think it would be completely unworkable. I think most players would reject a world where men shared child-rearing responsibilities evenly with women, men and women had unisex names and wore mainly unisex clothing, and the culture entirely lacked what most people would consider "natural" gender roles found in our culture, such as the sexually aggressive male and the enticing but demure female. Sure, you could write a game world that was egalitarian by 21st century Western standards, but it would be loaded with sexist content. For instance, if the author was American, they might assume an all-male or mostly-male infantry, but there are plenty of places in the world where women have fought in standing armies, including most Communist countries. Just covering breasts on women might seem as quaint to some humans, as hoop skirts are to the modern mind.

Can a truly egalitarian game book gain mass market success in a world where Brittney Spears is a pop star?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A couple of pebbles to lob into the pond here...

1. For thems as have been posting in here, in your own games, how often do players run PCs not of their own gender? And what results do you get?

Or do you as DM even allow such? (in a thread here a few months back, a surprising number of DMs flatly and shockingly stated that such was banned in their games...a serious eye-opener, to be sure)

As a DM, I don't care if you play your gender or not.

As a player, I try to play the gender the PC concept suggests...or in some cases, demands. If this means playing a female (I'm male), so be it.

For some reason, this makes some of my GM's (past and present) uncomfortable. Some are so uncomfortable with the concept that they flat-out forbid opposite-gender PCs. So if they won't let me do it, I change PCs and place "the offender" in a file to be used later.

3. While the selection of plastic female minis doesn't impress, I've noticed more and more really good female metal minis coming out of late; so all is not lost on that front

.

I made a similar observation a few pages ago- I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in at least perceiving that.

 

[Ariosto]

"Is wish-fulfillment game X viable" is to me something other than whether it should be D&D. I don't find D&D "better" for being made more like RuneQuest -- or vice-versa. I don't look forward eagerly to the day when the neighborhood hamburger stand falls to McDonald's.

 

[S'mon]

Good to hear. Care to post some of these GMing techniques?

P.S. What's special about Californians? I think I'm missing a reference/joke.

Just that Californians tend to be particularly sensitive, including sensitive to perceived *isms.

Techniques - trying to remember - well, in the campaign that was perceived to be sexist, it was set in a vaguely patriarchal Gygaxo-medievalesque area. The premise was that the PCs were working for a nobleman - which I think was a problem if they wanted to do something different. The big problem actually was that the female players' perception of the campaign seem to be filtered through one of the male players (not Matt), who had a very skewed take on it, and by the time I realised that it was too late. So I've looked out for that. Another issue was a female noble NPC the PCs had to rescue at least twice; I think she was arguably a sexist character, or at any rate my portrayal of her was not great. The problem there was that she was the only female NPC in a position of power that the PCs had dealings with.

So, I think the main thing in subsequent campaigns has been to avoid rescue-the-princess scenarios, except when running published scenarios (eg Rahasia). The next campaign I ran was Lost City of Barakus; it doesn't include any female NPCs in positions of power except for one villain, but it's a sandbox and the PCs are free to do whatever they want. The only time the PCs encountered a damsel in distress, she had escaped from slavers herself, the PCs just escorted her back to town and she became a valuable contact as a magic item broker.

The next, current campaign I'm running (Willow Vale) is mission/scenario based; the PCs work for the king and he sends them on missions. This is potentially like the 'problematic' campaign, and again pretty much all the NPCs in positions of power are male. However where the first campaign was set in a civilised realm, this is a 'points of light' setting where everyone needs to work together to survive; sexism is irrelevant when every heroic PC is vital to the survival of the realm. The general thing has been to avoid sexist portrayals of female NPCs. Actually I told off a player who had his dwarf PC making sexist comments to a female PC of (the only) female player, my feeling is that it may be 'all in character' but it can easily create a bad atmosphere.

Another thing about the original campaign - I couldn't get through to the female players that while the setting was somewhat patriarchal, this didn't noticeably affect the ability of female PCs to achieve positions of power. They had already formed an impression of powerlessness based off their perceptions filtered through the male player who tended to dominate activity at the table. So I've kept an eye out for any sign such dynamics could be forming; luckily this has not been a problem since.

One useful technique in the Barakus campaign was to give each PC several useful NPC contacts, who they could detail themselves. That way the female players and PCs had independent sources of information and power. For instance, one female player's PC was an army veteran; one of her contacts was a wealthy retired general. This relation was independent of any of the other PCs.

Hmm, thinking about it I think I'll start using that Contacts system again in my current Willow Vale game - I've been looking for ways to open it out. Thanks Shilsen.

 

[S'mon]

A couple of pebbles to lob into the pond here...

1. For thems as have been posting in here, in your own games, how often do players run PCs not of their own gender? And what results do you get?

My wife is more comfortable playing male PCs; when she plays female characters they tend to be too danger-averse to actually adventure. I quite like playing female PCs, but I tend to only play them with female GMs, who IME are more likely to be supportive.

My last two campaigns, everyone has played a character of the same sex. Some female players who are sensitive about sexism don't want to have to play a male PC in order to have equal opportunities. Also, my current game is an open-access one at a club with constantly changing players; in that environment players may prefer to play a PC of the same sex for ease of identification.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Just that Californians tend to be particularly sensitive, including sensitive to perceived *isms.

*ahem*

I think you mean to say that Californians are stereotyped as being particularly sensitive, including sensitive to perceived *isms.

 

[S'mon]

*ahem*

I think you mean to say that Californians are stereotyped as being particularly sensitive, including sensitive to perceived *isms.

Nope.