Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Deset Gled" data-source="post: 5993161" data-attributes="member: 7808">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.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?</blockquote>

Verification