D&D 5E 5e's new gender policy - is it attracting new players?

[aramis erak]

As far as I am aware the most sexist thing in L5R is the female only Battle Maidens. Otherwise there is no difference in gender.

And the expectation that a female of the Samurai or Royal social castes is accompanied by a yojimbo at all times when not at home. I'm not digging out 2E to quote page numbers.

Plus, no male geishas (I've not seen reference to them in L5R at all), most of the female NPC's are either courtiers or shugenja. There are some Samurai-ko... but even that is an interesting quirk of Japanese - -ko is used to indicate any of "female," "Child," "Little," or "Small."

It's mentioned in the 2E Player's Book that the gender issues in Rokugan are toned down, but not erased. Just enough to keep a samurai feel... in both directions. (Historical Nippon was much more complex.)

In general, if male/female doesn't have any impact at all on things, I can't maintain enough suspension of disbelief to enjoy the game. It's too far from What People Are Like for me to be able to keep that world in mind. I keep replacing it with one that makes more sense to me.

Then again, I submit that the issue with your games being gender focused is yours. You have gender biased expectations, and you demand they be met in games you play in. Please, don't play at my table, because, either I'm enforcing historical ones, or I'm not paying attention to character gender.

You're the one with the issue, and the problem.

 

[Shasarak]

And the expectation that a female of the Samurai or Royal social castes is accompanied by a yojimbo at all times when not at home. I'm not digging out 2E to quote page numbers.

Plus, no male geishas (I've not seen reference to them in L5R at all), most of the female NPC's are either courtiers or shugenja. There are some Samurai-ko... but even that is an interesting quirk of Japanese - -ko is used to indicate any of "female," "Child," "Little," or "Small."

It's mentioned in the 2E Player's Book that the gender issues in Rokugan are toned down, but not erased. Just enough to keep a samurai feel... in both directions. (Historical Nippon was much more complex.)

Shugenja are also expected to have a Yojimbo (and Courtiers also get them as well) and there is no restriction for that Yojimbo to be male.

The Emperor of Rokugan was Female, the Kami are both male and female, the Clan Leaders can be male or female, the Seven Thunders were female and male, the Phoenix Blood speakers were led by a female, the is no restriction on Dragon monks to be either female or male or to have a Yojimbo follow them around.

The only clan with a gender discrimination is the Unicorns with their Battle Maidens, so not really seeing the problem with not-Japan, I mean Rokugan and Gender.

 

[seebs]

Then again, I submit that the issue with your games being gender focused is yours. You have gender biased expectations, and you demand they be met in games you play in.

Uh, no. This is not even close to what I said.

I do not necessarily have specific expectations... It's just that, in practice, humans pay attention to gender. Suddenly having humans not paying attention to gender at all makes them seem very unlike humans. Uncanny valley.

You're the one with the issue, and the problem.

So far as I can tell, this is not the case. You articulated a possible criticism of my position, except it's completely unrelated to what I actually hold as a position. So I don't think I buy it.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Really? Picard and Data are completely different? Other than you don't have the friendship angle, I'd say they are pretty close actually.

What? You don't think friendship is a significant part of a relationship? Spock and Kirk are equals and confidants (fleet rank notwithstanding). Picard is more like a guardian and mentor to Data. And Janeway is a guardian and mentor to Seven, so there's actually more commonality there.

Data and Spock are the super smart characters who are somewhat socially awkward.

Spock's a Vulcan; he just has different customs. Data is in fact socially inept and requires guidance. And Seven is also socially inept and requires guidance, so again, actually more commonality there.

Uber geeks played by actors who aren't exactly specimens of masculinity. Compared to Seven of Nine, a super hot actress who runs around in a skin tight cat suit.

Appearance is not characterization. And for what it's worth, Spock in particular has a lot of female fans.

Heck, at least as far as I can remember, neither Spock nor Data were raped.

Is that how we're keeping score now?

Does she actually do anything for the entire movie, other than be "the girlfriend".

Short answer: yes. Here is her introductory scene, to jog your memory of her characterization.

At least Leia does stuff in the movie. She leads the troops from the front. Shoots guards. Leads the ewoks. I'd say that's actually a pretty decently presented female character.

Exactly. So obviously female characters don't have to be written flat and passive. There's nothing intrinsic about femaleness that makes writers write them that way. If they write them that way, it's because they're bad writers.

 

[IlluminatedSeraph]

What? You don't think friendship is a significant part of a relationship? Spock and Kirk are equals and confidants (fleet rank notwithstanding). Picard is more like a guardian and mentor to Data. And Janeway is a guardian and mentor to Seven, so there's actually more commonality there.

Spock's a Vulcan; he just has different customs. Data is in fact socially inept and requires guidance. And Seven is also socially inept and requires guidance, so again, actually more commonality there.

Appearance is not characterization. And for what it's worth, Spock in particular has a lot of female fans.

Is that how we're keeping score now?

Short answer: yes. Here is her introductory scene, to jog your memory of her characterization.

Exactly. So obviously female characters don't have to be written flat and passive. There's nothing intrinsic about femaleness that makes writers write them that way. If they write them that way, it's because they're bad writers.

So, here's the thing: I don't think there's anyone in this thread who thinks there's anything intrinsically flat and passive about femaleness. But the argument being made by several people here, I think including Hussar, is that there is something in our society's view of femaleness that inclines writers to write female characters flat and passive and above all defined by the men around them - as lovers, as mothers, as prizes, as not-quite-full-persons. That, basically, when a whole bunch of (mainly men) who are being bad writers specifically about female characters tend to be bad in the same basic ways, there is something larger than just a particular lack of skill in one person. And that the solution has to be approached on a level bigger than calling one person after another a bad writer and moving on. Especially when the way the audience (male and female) tends to read characters shows similar patterns to the mistakes the writers are making.

That's my reading of Hussar's point, at least, so I thought I'd try clarifying and see if it helped.

 

[Lanefan]

"Luke I am your mother" would be a pretty big change no?

Try as I might I just cannot wrap my mind around Padme Amidala turning into Darth Vader (which would then become Darth Mater, I think).

Lan-"you will find the Emperor is not as forgiving as I am"-efan

 

[Celtavian]

So, here's the thing: I don't think there's anyone in this thread who thinks there's anything intrinsically flat and passive about femaleness. But the argument being made by several people here, I think including Hussar, is that there is something in our society's view of femaleness that inclines writers to write female characters flat and passive and above all defined by the men around them - as lovers, as mothers, as prizes, as not-quite-full-persons. That, basically, when a whole bunch of (mainly men) who are being bad writers specifically about female characters tend to be bad in the same basic ways, there is something larger than just a particular lack of skill in one person. And that the solution has to be approached on a level bigger than calling one person after another a bad writer and moving on. Especially when the way the audience (male and female) tends to read characters shows similar patterns to the mistakes the writers are making.

That's my reading of Hussar's point, at least, so I thought I'd try clarifying and see if it helped.

It's hard to write female characters, especially as warriors in the ancient world. Men are so physically dominant. In a world where physical power is power, it's hard to write females as being able to actively pursue power in that type of world other than to marry and manipulate it. It's just easier to toss out the physical power difference in genders and write females as males reacting in the same aggressively violent manner that allowed men to dominate. I know in my own dealings with females, it's very hard to not feel like you have to treat them with a soft touch since the natural inclination is to protect them from male aggression. It's just so damn hard to write females in an interesting manner. I wish it were easier.

 

[IlluminatedSeraph]

It's hard to write female characters, especially as warriors in the ancient world. Men are so physically dominant. In a world where physical power is power, it's hard to write females as being able to actively pursue power in that type of world other than to marry and manipulate it. It's just easier to toss out the physical power difference in genders and write females as males reacting in the same aggressively violent manner that allowed men to dominate. I know in my own dealings with females, it's very hard to not feel like you have to treat them with a soft touch since the natural inclination is to protect them from male aggression. It's just so damn hard to write females in an interesting manner. I wish it were easier.

See, on the one hand, you have a point - most of the women I know, put up against an equivalently trained and fit man, would have a hard time of it. On the other hand, the extremely key words in that sentence are equivalently trained. I know one or two women (and know of quite a few more) who could disassemble any man I've ever personally met without breaking a sweat. Not because they're big Amazonian types, but because they know exactly what they're doing and aren't afraid to take swift, violent action to defend themselves if they feel the need.

So I don't really struggle at all with female adventurers in gaming, for instance, even in my most gritty and non-magical games - that's perfectly real to me, that a woman can and will kill the hell out of you (almost) as efficiently as an equivalently trained man. And once you move into the world of ranged weapons or endurance fighting, even that physical comparison you're talking about gets pretty muddy.

Most women, because of cultural programming and general environment, don't learn these things. We spend our whole lives being told that we're fragile, delicate creatures that can't compete with men physically and that our best response to a threat from a man is to run or scream for help, not to crush his throat or put a sharp object through a major artery. The main barrier to effective women warriors has always, always been access to training and the social expectation that violence is an exclusively male passtime.

It isn't true. Height and reach and muscle mass count, but training and the willingness to put your opponent on the ground or six feet under it count for a lot more.

 

[Talmek]

I suppose in a game where the limits are in your mind (and of course for those who choose, RAW) having the freedom prescribed to the player that they can choose to be whatever gender they want is really less about the game mechanics (since males, females, et al have identical statistics) and more about an "over the table" acknowledgment of the current state in our world. I can't say this is good, bad or irrelevant to the number of new players that may play 5e since a GM that doesn't want that in their game could easily ruin it for the new player in question. Of course, with the current state of the world being what it is that GM would see themselves burned in effigy in short order for making that decision, but that's not the purpose of this thread.

Bottom line for me - be what you want in a game that is supposed to spark imagination!

 

[hawkeyefan]

And I think this is why the game has moved away from there being mechanical differences in game to reflect the differences between genders, and now treats them as mechanically the same.

I think that's a big part of things. Any differences would be based on character outlook and the social structures within the setting. And those factors can be huge. But none of them really have any mechanical elements.

Games that are more mechanically based...dungeon crawls or kick in the door style...will be less likely to notice any differences based on gender because mechanically there are none. Games that are more socially based may see such factors as gender having a much larger impact on play.

And then there's the majority of games that likely fall somewhere in the middle.